Abstract
The aim of this study is to describe and analyse the structure of 3D geometry thinking by identifying different types of reasoning and to examine their relation with spatial ability. To achieve this goal, two tests were administered to students in grades 5 to 9. The results of the study showed that 3D geometry thinking could be described by four distinct types of reasoning which refer to the representation of 3D objects, spatial structuring, conceptualisation of mathematical properties and measurement. The analysis of the study also showed that 3D geometry types of reasoning and spatial abilities should be modelled as different constructs. Finally, it was concluded that students’ spatial abilities, which consist of spatial visualisation, spatial orientation and spatial relations factors, are a strong predictive factor of the four types of reasoning in 3D geometry thinking.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Battista, M. (1999). Fifth graders’ enumeration of cubes in 3D arrays: Conceptual progress in an inquiry-based classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(4), 417–448.
Battista, M. (2003). Understanding students’ thinking about area and volume measurement. In D. H. Clements & G. Bright (Eds.), Learning and teaching measurement (pp. 122–142). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Battista, M., & Clements, D. H. (1996). Students’ understanding of three-dimensional rectangular arrays of cubes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 258–292.
Ben-Chaim, D., Lappan, G., & Houang, R. (1989). Adolescents’ ability to communicate spatial information: Analysing and effecting students’ performance. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 121–146.
Berthelot, R., & Salin, M. H. (1998). The role of pupils’ spatial knowledge in the elementary teaching of geometry. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for he 21st Century (pp. 71–78). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bishop, A. (1980). Spatial abilities and mathematics education: A review. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11(3), 257–269.
Brown, D. L., & Wheatley, G. H. (1997). Components of imagery and mathematical understanding. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 19(1), 45–70.
Burton, L. J., & Fogarty, G. J. (2003). The factor structure of visual imagery and spatial abilities. Intelligence, 31, 289–318.
Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 420–464). New York: Macmillan.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2007). Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum: Summative research on the building blocks project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 136–163.
Cohen, N. (2003). Curved solid nets. In N. Paterman, B. J. Doughery, & J. Zillox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th international conference of psychology in mathematics education, vol. 2 (pp. 229-236). Honolulu, USA.
Colom, R., Contreras, M. J., Botella, J., & Santacreu, J. (2001). Vehicles of spatial ability. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 903–912.
Demetriou, A., Christou, C., Spanoudis, G., & Platsidou, M. (2002). The development of mental processing: Efficiency, working memory, and thinking. Monographs of the Society of Research in Child Development (Serial Number 267).
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. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., & Harman, H. H. (1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
Fischbein, E. (1993). The theory of figural concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(2), 139–162.
Friedman, L. (1995). The space factor in mathematics: Gender differences. Review of Educational Research, 65, 22–50.
Gutiérrez, A. (1992). Exploring the links between van Hiele levels and 3-dimensional geometry. Structural Topology, 18, 31–48.
Gutiérrez, A. (1996). Vizualization in 3-dimensional geometry: In search of a framework. In L. Puig & A. Guttierez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, vol. 1 (pp. 3–15). Valencia: Universidad de Valencia.
Gutierrez, A., Lawrie, C., & Pegg, J. (2004) Characterization of students’ reasoning and proof abilities in 3-dimensional geometry. In M. J. Hoines, & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th conference of the International group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, vol. 2 (pp. 511-518). Bergen, Norway.
Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. (2004). A dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities. Intelligence, 32, 175–191.
Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. A. (2005). Individual differences in spatial abilities. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holzinger, K. J., & Swineford, F. (1946). The relation of two bi-factors to achievement in geometry and other subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 37, 257–265.
Kimura, D. (1999). Sex and cognition. Cambridge: MIT.
Kozhevnikov, M., & Hegarty, M. (2001). A dissociation between object-manipulation and perspective-taking spatial abilities. Memory & Cognition, 29, 745–756.
Kozhevnikov, M., Motes, M., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Spatial visualization in physics problem solving. Cognitive Science, 31, 549–579.
Lohman, D. (1988). Spatial abilities as traits, processes and knowledge. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence, vol. 40 (pp. 181–248). Hillsdale: LEA.
Lohman, D. (2000). Complex information processing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence (pp. 285–340). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ma, H. L., Wu, D., Chen, J. W., & Hsieh, K. J. (2009). Mithelmore’s development stages of the right rectangular prisms of elementary school students in Taiwan. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, vol. 4 (pp. 57–64). Thessaloniki: PME.
Marcoulides, G. A., & Schumacker, R. E. (1996). Advanced structural equation modelling: Issues and techniques. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Mariotti, M. A. (1989). Mental images: some problems related to the development of solids. In G. Vergnaud, J. Rogalski, & M. Artique (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13rd international conference for the psychology of mathematics education, vol. 2 (pp. 258-265). Paris, France.
Markopoulos, C. (2003). Teaching and learning of solids with the use of technological tools. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Patra, Greece.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Rettinger, D. A., Shah, P., & Hegarty, M. (1991). How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 621–640.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998-2007). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthen & Muthen.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.
Owens, K., & Outhred, L. (2006). The complexity of learning geometry and measurement. In A. Gutierrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 83–116). Rotterdam: Sense.
Parzysz, B. (1988). Problems of the plane representation of space geometry figures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 19(1), 79–92.
Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (2001). Patterns in children’s drawings and actions while constructing the nets of solids: the case of the conical surfaces. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 23(4), 41–62.
Presmeg, N. (2006). Research on visualization in learning and teaching mathematics. In A. Gutierrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 205–236). Rotterdam: Sense.
Schulze, D., Beauducel, A., & Brocke, B. (2005). Semantically meaningful and abstract figural reasoning in the context of fluid and crystallized intelligence. Intelligence, 33, 143–159.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pittalis, M., Christou, C. Types of reasoning in 3D geometry thinking and their relation with spatial ability. Educ Stud Math 75, 191–212 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9251-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9251-8