Spatial Abilities in Problem Solving in Kinematics

  • Maria Kozhevnikov
  • Mary Hegarty
  • Richard Mayer

Abstract

This study investigates the relationship between students’ spatial abilities and their ability to solve problems in physics, specifically in kinematics. The approach taken is to consider spatial ability not as single and undifferentiated, but composed of different components. The hypothesis is that different types of kinematics problems require different spatial abilities. Sixty undergraduate psychology students, who had not taken any physics courses at college level, took a battery of cognitive tests measuring different spatial skills, verbal ability and mechanical reasoning. In addition, students were presented with a series of kinematics problems by means of a written problem solving questionnaire. Analyses of students’ responses indicated that different types of kinematics problems require different cognitive skills. It was found, for instance, that extrapolating complex two-dimensional motion correlates significantly with spatial visualisation ability, whereas inferring direction of motion from a graph correlates with spatial orientation ability. However, performance on other types of kinematics problems (e.g., evaluating an object’s speed and some types of graph problems) do not correlate with spatial abilities, indicating that they may require mostly semantic knowledge of physics laws or mathematical reasoning.

Keywords

Harman Mellon Wallach 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baddeley, A. (1992). Is working memory working? The fifteenth Barlett lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 44A(1):1–31.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baddeley, A.D. and Lieberman, K. (1980). Spatial working memory. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance, Vol. VIII. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bennet, C.K. (1969). Bennet mechanical comprehension test. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carroll, J.B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytical studies. Cambridge University Press, UK: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cattell, R.B. (1952). Factor analysis: An introduction and manual for the psychologists and social scientists. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chi, M.T.H. and Glaser, R. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clement, J. (1983). A conceptual model discussed by Galileo and used intuitively by physics students. In D. Gentner, and A. Stevens (Eds), Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 325–339.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dictionary of Occupation Titles (1991). U.S. Department of labor, employment and training administration. U.S. Employment Service, Career Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    diSessa, A.A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman and P. Pufall (Eds), Constructivism in the computer age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 49–70.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ekstrom, R.B., French, J.W. and Harman, H.H. (1976). Manual for kit of factor referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ericsson, K.A. and Smith, J. (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise. Cambridge University Press, UK: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fallside, D.C. (1988). Understanding machines in motion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halloun, I.A. and Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics 53:1043–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hegarty, M. and Sims, V.K. (1994). Individual differences in mental animation during mechanical reasoning. Memory and Cognition 22:411–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hegarty, M. and Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Spatial abilities, working memory and mechanical reasoning. In J. Gero and B. Tversky (Eds), Visual and spatial reasoning in design. Preprints of the International Conference in Design, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 15–17 June, pp. 15–17.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hestenes, D., Wells, M. and Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. American Journal of Physics 30:141–154.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Isaak, M.I. and Just, M.A. (1995). Constrains on the processing of rolling motion: The curtate cycloid illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 21:1391–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kosslyn, S.M., Care, K.R. and Wallach, R.W. (1984). Individual differences in mental imagery ability: A computational analysis. Cognition 18:195–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Students’ use if imagery in solving qualitative problems in kinematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Technion, Haifa, Israel.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kozhevnikov, M. and Hegarty, M. (1999). Perspective taking ability is distinct from mental rotation ability. In 40th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles, CA, 18–21 November.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Larkin, J.H. and Simon, H.A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth the thousand words. Cognitive Science 11:65–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lohman, D.F. (1988). Spatial abilities as traits, processes, and knowledge. In R. J. Stenberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 181–232.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    McCloskey, M. (1983). Nave theories of motion In D. Gentner and A. Stevens (Eds), Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 229–324.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McGee, M.G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin 86:889–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miller, A.I. (1986.) Imagery in scientific thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nerssesian, N.J. (1995). Should physicists preach what they practice? Science & Education 4:203–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Poltrock, S.E. and Agnoli, F. (1986). Are spatial visualization and visual imagery ability equivalent? In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.) Advances in psychology of human intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 255–296.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Psychological Corporation (1990). The mechanical reasoning test of the differential aptitude test. New York. 168 AppendicesGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ranney, M. (1994). Relative consistency and subjects’ “theories” in domains such as nave physics: Common research difficulties illustrated by Cooke and Breedin. Memory and Cognition 22:494–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Salthouse, T.A., Babcock, R.L., Mitchell, D.R.D., Palmon, R. and Skovronek, E. (1990). Sources of individual differences in spatial visualization ability. Intelligence 14:187–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sims, V.K. and Hegarty, M. (1997). Mental animation in the visuospatial sketchpad: Evidence from dual-task studies. Memory & Cognition 25:321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shah, P. and Miyake, A. (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 125:4–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schultz, K. and Lochhhead, J. (1991). A view from physics. In M.U. Smith (Ed.), Toward a unified theory of problem solving: Views from the content domains. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 99–114.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Smith, M. (1964). Spatial ability: Its educational and social significance. London: University of London Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Kozhevnikov
  • Mary Hegarty
  • Richard Mayer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations