=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1557/paper8
|storemode=property
|title=Teaching Spatial Thinking: Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1557/paper8.pdf
|volume=Vol-1557
|authors=Mary Hegarty,Margaret R. Tarampi
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/cosit/HegartyT15
}}
==Teaching Spatial Thinking: Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1557/paper8.pdf
Teaching Spatial Thinking: Perspectives from
Cognitive Psychology
Mary Hegarty1, Margaret R. Tarampi2
1
Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara
mary.hegarty@psych.ucsb.edu
2
Center for Spatial Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, California, USA
margaret.tarampi@sagecenter.ucsb.edu
Abstract. Cognitive psychology primarily focuses on understanding of how
humans represent and process spatial information. Cognitive psychology
approaches to spatial thinking consider how we think about space (i.e., thinking
in space, and thinking about space) and how we use space to think (i.e.,
thinking with space). This paper outlines topics to be covered on each of these
topics in a course on spatial thinking, with recommended readings for each
topic. Depending on the audience, it might be appropriate to put more emphasis
on fundamental understanding or to also address applications of spatial
cognition research, for example in education or to the development of spatial
technologies. An important goal of any course in spatial thinking is to give
students an appreciation of research methods in spatial cognition, including the
types of inferences that can and cannot be made from different types of
evidence to enable students to be critical readers of the literature.
1 Introduction
Marr [1] proposed that a complex information processing system such as the brain or
a computer should be understood at three different but independent levels of analysis
– the computational level (i.e., What is computed and why? What is the system
capable of doing?), the representational level (i.e., How is the information represented
in memory? What processes operate on these representations?), and the
implementation level (i.e., How is the system physically realized?). Within this
framework, research approaches are primarily defined by one of the three levels of
analysis and constrained by the other levels. Cognitive psychology is primarily
concerned with the representational level that is how information is represented and
what processes operate on these representations to accomplish cognitive tasks. In
contrast spatial information theory might be more concerned with the computational
level, whereas neuroscience addresses how the system is physically realized in the
brain. The study of representations and processes is challenging methodologically
because these mental structures and processes cannot be directly observed.
Spatial cognition is concerned with how people acquire, organize and use spatial
knowledge. Researchers sometimes make a distinction between spatial cognition and
spatial thinking. Spatial thinking is usually considered to be more complex often
involving multi-step processes to solve problems or attain goals. Spatial thinking
36
includes but goes beyond the study of implicit or automatic processes in that it is
strategic and goal-directed and involves volition. For example, spatial cognition might
include automatically updating our location as we move through the environment,
whereas planning the best route from work to home when your usual route is blocked
by roadwork might be an example of a more strategic, spatial thinking process.
Cognitive psychology approaches to spatial thinking consider how we think about
space and how we use space to think (i.e., thinking with space) (see Figure 1). In
terms of thinking about space, we can distinguish between spatial thinking at two
broad scales of space, (1) small-scale or object-based space, which includes activities
such as imagining object transformations and planning interactions with objects, and
(2) large-scale or environmental space, which includes activities such as learning the
layout of a new environment, and planning a route. Another distinction is between
thinking about space and using space to think. Using space to think includes situations
in which we use spatial representations to think about other entities, both abstract and
concrete. One example is spatial metaphors. For example, we follow the path of life,
feel “down” when we are sad, and climb the corporate ladder [2]. We also use spatial
representations to reason, for example when we represent premises in a reasoning
problem as Euler circles [3] or use diagrams, maps, and graphs, which enable us to
“use vision to think” [4].
37
Fig. 1. A Cognitive Psychology Framework for Spatial Thinking.
1.1 Thinking about Space
The Scale of Environments. Understanding spatial thinking at the scale of
environments is concerned with the representations and cognitive processes that
enable us to navigate in the world, including learning the layout of new environments
and planning routes to distant locations. Wolbers and Hegarty [5] provide an
overview of the sensory cues, perceptual and cognitive processes and spatial
representations involved in human and animal navigation. The following is a list of
possible topics to be addressed in a course on spatial thinking at the scale of
environments:
1. The idea of a cognitive map, stemming from classic research by Tolman
including critiques that question the ubiquity of this type of representation
[6, 7].
2. Research on distortions in cognitive maps [8-10]
3. An understanding that location, orientation and movement must be specified
with respect to some reference frame and distinctions between allocentric
and egocentric reference frames and between intrinsic, absolute and relative
frames of reference [11, 12]
4. An understanding of orientation dependency in spatial memories and the
factors such as experience, environmental geometry that influence the
orientation dependency [13-15]
5. Spatial updating & perspective taking [16-19]
6. Cognitive mapping, that is learning spatial layout and how the nature of the
resulting spatial representations depends on the learning experiences,
including learning from direct experience and from different media [20-22]
7. Individual differences in navigation abilities and strategies including
questions of measurement of these abilities [23-29]
8. Processes of wayfinding [30]
The Scale of Objects. Understanding spatial thinking at the scale of objects is
concerned with representations of objects, including visuospatial mental images and
action and how these are used when we interact with objects and in more complex
processes of reasoning and problem solving. The following are topics about spatial
thinking at this scale of space that might be covered in a course on spatial thinking.
1. Classic research on mental rotation. This includes classic research on mental
rotation as an analog process arguing for the functional importance of mental
imagery in spatial thinking [31].
2. Research on the role of visuospatial imagery more generally in spatial
thinking and problem solving [32, 33]. For example, our understanding of
mental imagery transformations continues to grow as researchers uncover
more specialized functions such as non-rigid transformations of bending and
folding [34], or in imaging biomechanical movement [35].
38
3. Research indicating the importance of embodied and multimodal
representations in spatial thinking [36-39].
4. Research on alternative strategies in spatial thinking at the scale of objects
including mental simulation (involving analog imagery processes) and more
analytic rule-based strategies. For example mental imagery and analytic
thinking can be used in conjunction with each other, in mechanical reasoning
and other spatial problem solving [40-42].
5. Research on individual differences in spatial ability which historically
depended on paper and pencil measures of spatial transformations at the
object scale. This includes classification of spatial abilities and cognitive
analyses of spatial ability measures [28, 43, 44].
6. Research on sex differences in spatial ability, which are particularly evident
in tests of mental rotation but do not occur in all measures of spatial abilities
[45, 46].
1.2 Using Space to Think
In addition to thinking about space, at the scale of objects and environments,
visuospatial thinking includes situations in which we use spatial representations to
think about other entities, both abstract and concrete. The following are optics on
using space to think that might be included in a cognitive psychology course on
spatial thinking.
1. Spatial metaphors in language When thinking about more abstract domains,
such as mathematics, time, or feelings, we can utilize a more concrete
domain to help us think [47]. Spatial metaphors help us conceptualize things
like time [48, 49], or numbers [50].
2. Use of spatial representations in reasoning including classic research by [51-
54].
3. How spatial representations in graphics, such as maps, diagrams, and graphs,
support our memory, convey relational information, and helps maintain a
mental model [55-57].
4. How spatial cognition research can inform the design of graphics given that
task performance can differ between different displays of the same
information [58-61].
2 Applications of Spatial Thinking Research
Depending on the audience, a course on spatial thinking might also cover applications
of research on this topic. One area in which spatial cognition research has been
applied is to education in the STEM (i.e., science, technology, engineering and
mathematics) disciplines. Importantly Wai, Lubinski and Benbow [62] showed that
spatial abilities predict success in STEM, which has raised questions about whether
training students in spatial thinking might enhance their success in the STEM. While
there is now good evidence that aspects of spatial thinking can be trained [63, 64]
there is little evidence to date that general spatial training transfers to success in
39
STEM disciplines [65]. Rather than attempting to train domain general spatial
thinking processes, an alternative approach is to analyze the demands of spatial
thinking in different STEM disciplines such as chemistry [66], geology [67, 68], and
GIScience [69]. Educational interventions can then focus on these particular spatial
demands. Another promising area of research in the education of spatial cognition
has shown that arts pedagogy is uniquely effective in training spatial thinking [65,
70]. In addition to research on innate and acquired spatial ability in the STEM
disciplines, education in spatial thinking can be informed of account of the
outstanding performance of spatial experts, including professional geologists [71],
architects [72], and London taxi cab drivers [73].
When teaching spatial thinking from a cognitive psychology perspective, the
course material should be adapted to the background of the students in the class. For
students in cognitive psychology, an emphasis would be placed on a robust theoretical
understanding of spatial thinking, starting with the object scale then the
environmental scale and concluding with topics on using space to think. The course
topics would include small scale spatial cognition and thinking (i.e., basic spatial
transformations, embodied representations, spatial thinking in problem solving,
strategic differences, and individual differences in spatial thinking), large scale spatial
cognition (i.e., spatial representations and memories, and processes in orientation,
reorientation and navigation) and using space to think (i.e., spatial metaphors,
reasoning and problem solving, and graphics). For students interested in enhancing
spatial thinking through education and/or spatial technologies, the course might
include a basic theoretical understanding of spatial thinking in addition to studies on
education, expertise, and human interaction with spatial technologies.
Other learning objectives centered on cognitive psychology methodology can be
easily integrated into the course format. It is important to enable students to be critical
readers of the literature and to be able to distinguish between good and bad
experimental designs, particularly in terms of statistical power (the likelihood of
detecting an effect if there is one). Students should know what inferences can be made
based on the method of measuring spatial cognition (self report v. objective measures;
virtual reality v. real world, etc.). A basic understanding of statistics is also important,
including understanding correlations (e.g., what can and cannot be inferred;
correlation does not imply causation), effect sizes, and statistical significance, is
necessary.
References
1. Marr, D., Poggio, T.: From Understanding Computation to Understanding Neural
Circuitry. Neuroscience Research Program Bulletin 15, 470-488 (1977)
2. Lakoff, G., Johnson, M.: Conceptual metaphor in everyday language. The journal
of Philosophy 453-486 (1980)
3. Stenning, K., Oberlander, J.: A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic
reasoning: Logic and implementation. Cognitive science 19, 97-140 (1995)
4. Card, S., McKinlay, J., Shneiderman, B.: Readings in Information Visualization:
Using Vision to Think. . Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1999)
40
5. Wolbers, T., Hegarty, M.: What determines our navigational abilities? Trends in
cognitive sciences 14, 138-146 (2010)
6. Wang, R.F., Spelke, E.S.: Human spatial representation: Insights from animals.
Trends in cognitive sciences 6, 376-382 (2002)
7. Tolman, E.C.: Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review 55, 189-
208 (1948)
8. Tversky, B.: Distortions in cognitive maps. Geoforum 23, 131-138 (1992)
9. Stevens, A., Coupe, P.: Distortions in judged spatial relations. Cognitive
Psychology 10, 422-437 (1978)
10. Sadalla, E.K., Burroughs, W.J., Staplin, L.J.: Reference points in spatial
cognition. Journal of experimental psychology: human learning and memory 6,
516 (1980)
11. Klatzky, R.L.: Allocentric and egocentric spatial representations: Definitions,
distinctions, and interconnections. In: Fresksa, C., Habel, C., Wender, K. (eds.)
Spatial cognition - An interdisciplinary approach to representation and processing
of spatial knowledge, pp. 1-17. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1998)
12. Levinson, S.: Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic
evidence. In: Bloom, P., Peterson, M. (eds.) Language and space, pp. 109–169.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1996)
13. Shelton, A.L., McNamara, T.P.: Orientation and perspective dependence in route
and survey learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition 30, 158 (2004)
14. McNamara, T.P.: Spatial representation. Geoforum 23, 139-150 (1992)
15. Mou, W., McNamara, T.P.: Intrinsic frames of reference in spatial memory.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 28, 162-
170 (2002)
16. Simons, D.J., Wang, R.F.: Perceiving real-world viewpoint changes.
Psychological Science 9, 315-320 (1998)
17. Rieser, J.J.: Access to knowledge of spatial structure at novel points of
observation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition 15, 1157 (1989)
18. May, M.: Imaginal perspective switches in remembered environments:
Transformation versus interference accounts. Cognitive Psychology 48, 163-206
(2004)
19. Klatzky, R.L., Loomis, J.M., Beall, A.C., Chance, S.S., Golledge, R.G.: Spatial
updating of self-position and orientation during real, imagined, and virtual
locomotion. Psychological Science 9, 293-298 (1998)
20. Thorndyke, P.W., Hayes-Roth, B.: Differences in spatial knowledge acquired
from maps and navigation. Cognitive Psychology 14, 560-589 (1982)
21. Presson, C.C.: Strategies in spatial reasoning. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 8, 243-251 (1982)
22. Richardson, A.E., Montello, D.R., Hegarty, M.: Spatial knowledge acquisition
from maps and from navigation in real and virtual environments. Memory &
cognition 27, 741-750 (1999)
23. Lawton, C.A.: Gender differences in way-finding strategies: Relationship to
spatial ability and spatial anxiety. Sex Roles 30, 765-779 (1994)
41
24. Pazzaglia, F., De Beni, R.: Are people with high and low mental rotation abilities
differently susceptible to the alignment effect? PERCEPTION-LONDON- 35,
369 (2006)
25. Weisberg, S.M., Schinazi, V.R., Newcombe, N.S., Shipley, T.F., Epstein, R.A.:
Variations in cognitive maps: Understanding individual differences in navigation.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 40, 669
(2014)
26. Allen, G.L., Kirasic, K.C., Dobson Richard, G., Shannon, H.: Predicting
environmental learning from spatial abilities: An indirect route. Intelligence 22,
327-355 (1996)
27. Ishikawa, T., Montello, D.R.: Spatial knowledge acquisition from direct
experience in the environment: Individual differences in the development of
metric knowledge and the integration of separately learned places. Cognitive
Psychology 52, 93-129 (2006)
28. Hegarty, M., Waller, D.: Individual differences in spatial abilities. In: Shah, P.,
Miyake, A. (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking, pp. 121-
169. Cambridge University Press, New York (2005)
29. Fields, A.W., Shelton, A.L.: Individual skill differences and large-scale
environmental learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition 32, 506 (2006)
30. Wiener, J.M., Büchner, S.J., Hölscher, C.: Taxonomy of human wayfinding
tasks: A knowledge-based approach. Spatial Cognition & Computation 9, 152-
165 (2009)
31. Shepard, R.N., Metzler, J.: Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science
171, 701 (1971)
32. Farah, M.J.: Is visual imagery really visual? Overlooked evidence from
neuropsychology. Psychological Review 95, 307-317 (1988)
33. Kosslyn, S.M.: Mental imagery. In: Kosslyn, S.M., Osherson, D.N. (eds.) Visual
cognition: An invitation to cognitive science, vol. 2, pp. 267-296. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA (1995)
34. Atit, K., Shipley, T.F., Tikoff, B.: Twisting space: are rigid and non-rigid mental
transformations separate spatial skills? Cognitive Processing: Spatial Learning
and Reasoning Processes 14, 163-173 (2013)
35. Parsons, L.M.: Imagined spatial transformations of one's hands and feet.
Cognitive Psychology 19, 178-241 (1987)
36. Wohlschläger, A., Wohlschläger, A.: Mental and manual rotation. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24, 397-417
(1998)
37. Parsons, L.M.: Imagined spatial transformation of one’s body. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General 116, 172–191 (1987)
38. Chu, M., Kita, S.: The nature of gestures' beneficial role in spatial problem
solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 140, 102-116 (2011)
39. Wraga, M., Shephard, J.M., Church, J.A., Inati, S., Kosslyn, S.M.: Imagined
rotations of self versus objects: an fMRI study. Neuropsychologia 43, 1351-1361
(2005)
40. Hegarty, M.: Mechanical reasoning by mental simulation. Trends Cogn Sci 8,
280-285 (2004)
42
41. Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., Mayer, R.: Revising the visualizer-verbalizer
dimension: Evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition and Instruction 20,
47-77 (2002)
42. Schwartz, D.L., Black, J.B.: Analog imagery in mental model reasoning:
Depictive models. Cognitive Psychology 30, 154-219 (1996)
43. Just, M.A., Carpenter, P.A.: Cognitive coordinate systems: Accounts of mental
rotation and individual differences in spatial ability. Psychological Review 92,
137-172 (1985)
44. Lohman, D.F.: Spatial Ability: A Review and Reanalysis of the Correlational
Literature. School of Education, Stanford University (1979)
45. Linn, M., Peterson, A.C.: Emergence and characterization of sex differences in
spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development 56, 1479-1498 (1985)
46. Voyer, D., Voyer, S., Bryden, M.P.: Magnitude of sex differences in spatial
abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological
bulletin 117, 250 (1995)
47. Lakoff, G., Johnson, M.: Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL (2008)
48. Boroditsky, L.: Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial
metaphors. Cognition 75, 1-28 (2000)
49. Casasanto, D., Boroditsky, L.: Time in the mind: Using space to think about time.
Cognition 106, 579-593 (2008)
50. Hubbard, E.M., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., Dehaene, S.: Interactions between number
and space in parietal cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6, 435-448 (2005)
51. Huttenlocher, J.: Constructing spatial images: A strategy in reasoning.
Psychological Review 75, 550-560 (1968)
52. Clark, H.H.: Linguistic processes in deductive reasoning. Psychological Review
76, 387- (1969)
53. Novick, L.R., Hurley, S.M., Francis, M.: Evidence for abstract, schematic
knowledge of three spatial diagram representations. Memory & cognition 27,
288-308 (1999)
54. Knauff, M., Johnson-Laird, P.: Visual imagery can impede reasoning. Memory &
cognition 30, 363-371 (2002)
55. Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A.: Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand
words. Cognitive science 11, 65-100 (1987)
56. Tversky, B.: Spatial schemas in depictions. In: Gattis, M. (ed.) Spatial schemas
and abstract thought, pp. 79-111. MIT Press, Cambridge MA (2001)
57. Shah, P., Carpenter, P.A.: Conceptual limitations in comprehending line graphs.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 124, 43-61 (1995)
58. Tufte, E.R.: Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative.
Graphics Press, Cheshire, CT (1997)
59. Bertin, J.: Matrix theory of graphics. Information Design Journal 10, 5-19 (2000)
60. Hegarty, M.: The cognitive science of Visual‐Spatial displays: Implications for
design. Topics in cognitive science 3, 446-474 (2011)
61. Smallman, H.S., John, M.: Naive realism: Limits of realism as a display
principle. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual
Meeting, pp. 1564-1568. SAGE Publications, (Year)
43
62. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C.P.: Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning
over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance.
Journal of Educational Psychology 101, 817 (2009)
63. Sorby, S., Casey, B., Veurink, N., Dulaney, A.: The role of spatial training in
improving spatial and calculus performance in engineering students. Learning
and Individual Differences 26, 20-29 (2013)
64. Stieff, M., Uttal, D.H.: How Much Can Spatial Training Improve STEM
Achievement? Educational Psychology Review 1-9 (2015)
65. Uttal, D.H., Meadow, N.G., Tipton, E., Hand, L.L., Alden, A.R., Warren, C.,
Newcombe, N.S.: The malleability of spatial skills: a meta-analysis of training
studies. Psychological bulletin 139, 352-402 (2013)
66. Stieff, M.: Mental rotation and diagrammatic reasoning in science. Learning and
instruction 17, 219-234 (2007)
67. Liben, L.S., Kastens, K.A., Christensen, A.E.: Spatial foundations of science
education: The illustrative case of instruction on introductory geological
concepts. Cognition and Instruction 29, 45-87 (2011)
68. Shipley, T.F., Tikoff, B., Ormand, C.J., Manduca, C.: Structural geology practice
and learning, from the perspective of cognitive science. Journal of Structural
Geology 54, 72-84 (2013)
69. Kolvoord, R., Uttal, D.H., Meadow, N.G.: Using video case studies to assess the
impact of the use of GIS on secondary students' spatial thinking skills. In:
Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences: International Conference: Spatial
Thinking and Geographic Information Sciences, pp. 372-379. Elsevier, (Year)
70. Newcombe, N.S.: Seeing Relationships: Using Spatial Thinking to Teach
Science, Mathematics, and Social Studies. American Educator 37, 26 (2013)
71. Hambrick, D.Z., Libarkin, J.C., Petcovic, H.L., Baker, K.M., Elkins, J., Callahan,
C.N., Turner, S.P., Rench, T.A., LaDue, N.D.: A test of the circumvention-of-
limits hypothesis in scientific problem solving: The case of geological bedrock
mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 141, 397 (2012)
72. Salthouse, T.A., Babcock, R.L., Skovronek, E., Mitchell, D.R.D., Palmon, R.:
Age and experience effects in spatial visualization. Developmental Psychology
26, 128-136 (1990)
73. Woollett, K., Spiers, H.J., Maguire, E.A.: Talent in the taxi: a model system for
exploring expertise. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences 364, 1407-1416 (2009)
44