Search

Fostering students' spatial thinking skills holds great promise for improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education. Recent efforts have focused on the development of classroom interventions to build students' spatial skills, yet these interventions will be implemented by teachers, and their beliefs and perceptions about spatial thinking influence the effectiveness of such interventions. However, our understanding of elementary school teachers' beliefs and perceptions around spatial thinking and STEM is in its infancy. Thus, we created novel measures to survey elementary teachers' anxiety in solving spatial problems, beliefs in the importance of spatial thinking skills for students' academic success, and self-efficacy in cultivating students' spatial skills during science instruction. All measures exhibited high internal consistency and showed that elementary teachers experience low anxiety when solving spatial problems and feel strongly that their skills can improve with practice. Teachers were able to identify educational problems that rely on spatial problem-solving and believed that spatial skills are more important for older compared to younger students. Despite reporting high efficacy in their general teaching and science teaching, teachers reported significantly lower efficacy in their capacities to cultivate students' spatial skills during science instruction. Results were fairly consistent across teacher characteristics (e.g., years of experience and teaching role as generalist or specialist) with the exception that only years of teaching science was related to teachers' efficacy in cultivating students' spatial thinking skills during science instruction. Results are discussed within the broader context of teacher beliefs, self-efficacy, and implications for professional development research. [This article was published in "Journal of Research in Science Teaching" (EJ1319642).]

Background: Spatial thinking skills are strongly correlated with achievement in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields and emerging research suggests that interventions aimed at building students' skills will likely yield measurable impacts on learning across K-12 settings. The importance of spatial thinking in science has received increased attention in academic discussions; however, the intentional practice of teaching spatial thinking skills is still largely absent from K-12 education. The translation of science into educational practice is challenging for a variety of reasons, including the difficulty "translating" research findings into practical applications and limited resources to support its development, implementation, and evaluation. Given these obstacles, one may ask "can spatial thinking be brought to the classroom?" In this paper, we argue that in order to effectively move research into the classroom, we must first systematically explore how spatial thinking can be translated into practice. Approach: We present a use-inspired, integrative framework that draws upon planned action and translation science theories, as well as research from cognitive, developmental, educational, and implementation sciences, to guide the infusion of spatial thinking into science curricula. In the Knowledge Translation Framework (KTF), translation is conceived as a multistage process, proceeding through seven stages: (1) the identification of relevant disciplinary and contextual knowledge, (2) the synthesis and translation of knowledge into guidelines to support the infusion of knowledge into the curriculum, (3) the development of tools to support curriculum development, implementation, and track the translation process, (4) the iterative development and refinement of the spatially-enhanced curriculum, (5) the creation of an analysis plan to evaluate the impact of the spatial enhancements and other contextual features on learning, (6) the development and implementation of an intervention plan, and (7) the evaluation of the intervention. Conclusion: The KTF is a use-inspired, integrative framework that unpacks the translation process and offers practical guidance on how a team may synthesize scientific and contextual knowledge, infuse it into a curriculum, and evaluate its impact in ways that will yield scientific understanding and practical knowledge. We also provide illustrative examples of how this approach was used to spatially enhance an elementary science curriculum.

Fostering students' spatial thinking skills holds great promise for improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education. Recent efforts have focused on the development of classroom interventions to build students' spatial skills, yet these interventions will be implemented by teachers, and their beliefs and perceptions about spatial thinking influence the effectiveness of such interventions. However, our understanding of elementary school teachers' beliefs and perceptions around spatial thinking and STEM is in its infancy. Thus, we created novel measures to survey elementary teachers' anxiety in solving spatial problems, beliefs in the importance of spatial thinking skills for students' academic success, and self-efficacy in cultivating students' spatial skills during science instruction. All measures exhibited high internal consistency and showed that elementary teachers experience low anxiety when solving spatial problems and feel strongly that their skills can improve with practice. Teachers were able to identify educational problems that rely on spatial problem-solving and believed that spatial skills are more important for older compared to younger students. Despite reporting high efficacy in their general teaching and science teaching, teachers reported significantly lower efficacy in their capacities to cultivate students' spatial skills during science instruction. Results were fairly consistent across teacher characteristics (e.g., years of experience and teaching role as generalist or specialist) with the exception that only years of teaching science was related to teachers' efficacy in cultivating students' spatial thinking skills during science instruction. Results are discussed within the broader context of teacher beliefs, self-efficacy, and implications for professional development research.

Spatial visualization is an essential prerequisite for understanding geological features at all scales, such as the atomic structures of minerals, the geometry of a complex fault system, or the architecture of sedimentary deposits. Undergraduate geoscience majors bring a range of spatial skill levels to upper-level courses. Fortunately, spatial thinking improves with practice, and students benefit from intentional training. Several promising teaching strategies have emerged from recent cognitive science research into spatial thinking: gesturing, predictive sketching, and comparison, including analogy and alignment. Geoscience educators have traditionally incorporated many of these tools in their teaching, though not always consciously, intentionally, and in the most effective ways. Our research team, composed of geoscientists and cognitive psychologists, has collaborated to develop curricular materials for mineralogy, structural geology, and sedimentology and stratigraphy courses that incorporate these strategies intentionally and purposefully, supporting student understanding of the spatially challenging concepts and skills in these courses. Collectively, these two dozen learning activities comprise the Spatial Thinking Workbook (http://serc.carleton.edu/spatialworkbook/index.html). Pre- to posttest gains on a suite of assessment instruments, as well as embedded assessments, show that these curricular materials boost students' spatial thinking skills and strengthen their ability to solve geological problems with a spatial component.

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics ( STEM) disciplines commonly illustrate 3D relationships in diagrams, yet these are often challenging for students. Failing to understand diagrams can hinder success in STEM because scientific practice requires understanding and creating diagrammatic representations. We explore a new approach to improving student understanding of diagrams that convey 3D relations that is based on students generating their own predictive diagrams. Participants' comprehension of 3D spatial diagrams was measured in a pre- and post-design where students selected the correct 2D slice through 3D geologic block diagrams. Generating sketches that predicated the internal structure of a model led to greater improvement in diagram understanding than visualizing the interior of the model without sketching, or sketching the model without attempting to predict unseen spatial relations. In addition, we found a positive correlation between sketched diagram accuracy and improvement on the diagram comprehension measure. Results suggest that generating a predictive diagram facilitates students' abilities to make inferences about spatial relationships in diagrams. Implications for use of sketching in supporting STEM learning are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Is boundary extension (false memory beyond the edges of the view; Intraub & Richardson, 1989) determined solely by the schematic structure of the view or does the quality of the pictorial information impact this error? To examine this color photograph or line-drawing versions of 12 multi-object scenes (Experiment 1: N=64) and 16 single-object scenes (Experiment 2: N=64) were presented for 14-s each. At test, the same pictures were each rated as being the "same", "closer-up" or "farther away" (5-pt scale). Although the layout, the scope of the view, the distance of the main objects to the edges, the background space and the gist of the scenes were held constant, line-drawings yielded greater boundary extension than did their photographic counterparts for multi-object (Experiment 1) and single-object (Experiment 2) scenes. Results are discussed in the context of the multisource model and its implications for the study of scene perception and memory.