Advertisement

Part II Commentary 2: Disparities and Opportunities: Plotting a New Course for Research on Spatial Visualization and Mathematics

  • Kelly S. S. Mix
  • Susan C. Levine
Chapter
Part of the Research in Mathematics Education book series (RME)

Abstract

Although the chapters contained in this volume focus on the singular topic of spatial visualization as it relates to mathematics, they span two distinct fields of study with different literatures and different scholarly approaches. In many ways, despite their common goals, the two sets of chapters seem worlds apart. We are reminded of Susan Carey’s classic developmental psychology book, Conceptual Change in Childhood (1985), that discussed incommensurate ideas in science and the ways children reconcile structurally disparate conceptual systems as they grow and learn. The gist was that when one conceptual structure lacks isomorphism with another conceptual structure, it is a significant challenge. We believe the fields represented in this volume face a similar challenge. Yet, these disciplinary asymmetries can also define and stimulate fruitful new research questions, as the advances made in one discipline raise new questions for the other. In this commentary, we aim to identify such asymmetries and consider what new research directions they suggest. We organize our comments around three major questions that cut across research from both fields:

References

  1. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 59, 617–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bigelow, A. E. (1996). Blind and sighted children’s spatial knowledge of their home environments. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19(4), 797–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, A. (1998). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. New York: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 27–63). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Glenberg, A. M. (2008). Embodiment for education. In P. Calvo & T. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: An embodied approach (pp. 355–372). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(4), 586–596.Google Scholar
  9. Gutiérrez, A. (1996). Visualization in 3-dimensional geometry: In search of a framework. In L. Puig & A. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th PME Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 3–19). Valencia, Spain: Universidad de Valencia.Google Scholar
  10. Hegarty, M., & Koszhenikov, M. (1999). Types of visuo-spatial representations and mathematics problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 684–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huttenlocher, J., Higgins, E. T., & Clark, H. H. (1971). Adjectives, comparatives, and syllogisms. Psychological Review, 78(6), 487–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huttenlocher, J., Jordan, N. C., & Levine, S. C. (1994). A mental model for early arithmetic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123(3), 284–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson‐Laird, P. N. (1980). Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 4(1), 71–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Landau, B., Spelke, E., & Gleitman, H. (1984). Spatial knowledge in a young blind child. Cognition, 16, 225–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Mix, K. S. & Cheng, Y. L. (2012). The relation between space and math: Developmental and educational implications. In J. B. Benson (Ed.) Advances in Child Development and Behavior, (Vol. 42, pp. 197–243), New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  17. Novack, M. A., Congdon, E. L., Hemani-Lopez, N., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2014). From action to abstraction: Using the hands to learn mathematics. Psychological Science, 25(4), 903–910.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613518351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Newcombe, N. S., & Shipley, T. F. (2015). Thinking about spatial thinking: New typology, new assessments. In Studying visual and spatial reasoning for design creativity (pp. 179–192). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Schöner, G., & Spencer, J. (2015). Dynamic thinking: A primer on dynamic field theory. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sternberg, R. J. (1980). Representation and process in linear syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109(2), 119–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1996). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
  22. Trabasso, T., & Riley, C. A. (1975). On the construction and use of representations involving linear order. In Robert L. Solso (Ed.), Information Processing and Cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 381–410). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Young, C. J., Levine, S. C., & Mix, K. S. (this volume). What processes underlie the relation between spatial skill and mathematics? In I. K. S. Mix & M. T. Battista (Eds.), Visualizing mathematics: The role of spatial reasoning in mathematical thought. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human Development and Quantitative MethodologyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Departments of Psychology, and Comparative Human Development and Committee on EducationUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations