Advertisement

Symbolics, Syntactics, and Semantics: Teaching a Language of Maps

  • Phil GersmehlEmail author
Reference work entry

Abstract

Maps are attempts to communicate, but is mapping a language? Like verbal texts, maps carry several kinds of messages at the same time. Many map symbols represent facts about specific places. At the same time, their positions on the map can reveal distances, directions, patterns, feature associations, and other spatial relationships. Unfortunately, human brains seldom remember shapes and sizes accurately. A workshop “game” helps us understand why – the human visual system processes incoming images through multiple, parallel pathways, only some of which typically lead to conscious awareness. Decades of research by cartographers have given us a number of useful “rules of thumb” about symbol selection, size, visual hierarchy, color sequences, type design and placement, and so forth. More recent research by psychologists and neuroscientists (aided by new brain-scanning technology) has put some of those principles on more solid theoretical grounds. Together, these two lines of research lead to the disturbing conclusion that some popular educational approaches are unlikely to be successful. Educators should approach the teaching of the “vocabulary” and “grammar” of maps by observing what happens in effective foreign-language lessons. Students should be encouraged to practice the basic skills with well-designed maps about topics worth knowing. These activities help students acquire a stock of mental maps of causally important information, which their brains can use to help interpret the spatial patterns, feature associations, analogic positions, and other spatial relationships that they might perceive on new maps. It’s like learning how to learn!

Keywords

Map Communication model Spatial reasoning Spatial pattern Spatial association Spatial analogy 

Notes

Publisher’s note:

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Anderson, J. R., Pyke, A. A., & Fincham, J. M. (2016). Hidden stages of cognition revealed in patterns of brain activation. Psychological Science, 27(9), 1215–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arguin, M., & Saumier, D. (2000). Conjunction and linear non-separability effects in visual shape encoding. Vision Research, 40, 3099–3115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bar, M. (2007). The proactive brain: Using analogies and associations to generate predictions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(7), 280–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blades, M., & Cooke, Z. (1994). Young children’s ability to understand a model as a spatial representation. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 155(2), 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buckley, M., & Gaffan, D. (2006). Perirhinal cortical contributions to object perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(3), 100–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cate, A. D., & Köhler, S. (2006). The missing whole in perceptual models of perirhinal cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(9), 396–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cavina-Pratasi, C., Kentridge, R. W., Heywood, C. A., & Milner, A. D. (2010). Separate channels for processing form, texture, and color: Evidence from fMRI adaptation and visual object agnosia. Cerebral Cortex, 20(10), 2819–2832.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen Kadosh, R., Henik, A., Rubinsten, O., Mohr, H., Dori, H., van de Ven, V., Zorzi, M., Hendler, T., Goebel, R., & Linden, D. E. J. (2005). Are numbers special? The comparison systems of the human brain investigated by fMRI. Neuropsychologia, 43, 1238–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coltheart, M., Curtis, B., Atkins, P., & Haller, M. (1993). Models of reading aloud: Dual-route and parallel-distributed-processing approaches. Psychological Review, 100(4), 589–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornell, E. H., Sorenson, A., & Mio, T. (2003). Human sense of direction and wayfinding. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(2), 399–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Vrieze, J. (2017). ‘Science wars’ veteran has a new mission. Science, 358(6360), 159.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.358.6360.159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dehaene, S. (2003). The neural basis of the Weber-Fechner law: A logarithmic mental number line. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 145–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain. New York: Viking Penguin.Google Scholar
  14. DeLoache, J. S., Miller, K. F., & Rosengran, K. S. (1997). The credible shrinking room: Very young children’s performance with symbolic and non-symbolic relations. Psychological Science, 8(4), 308–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dessalegn, B., & Landau, B. (2008). More than meets the eye; the role of language in binding and maintaining feature conjunctions. Psychological Science, 19, 189–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dow, G. A., & Pick, H. L. (1992). Young children’s use of models and photographs as spatial representations. Cognitive Development, 7(3), 351–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Downs, R. M., & Liben, L. S. (1991). The development of expertise in geography: A cognitive-developmental approach to geographic education. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 81, 304–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elliffe, M. C., Rolls, E. T., & Stringer, S. M. (2002). Invariant recognition of feature combinations in the visual system. Biological Cybernetics, 86, 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flannery, J. J. (1971). The relative effectiveness of some common graduated point symbols in the presentation of quantitative data. Cartographica, 8(2), 96–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gattis, M. (Ed.). (2001). Spatial schemas and abstract thought. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  21. Gersmehl, P. (1991). Language of maps. NCGE Pathways in Geography #1.Google Scholar
  22. Gersmehl, P. (2014). Teaching geography (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gersmehl, P., & Gersmehl, C. (2006). Wanted: A concise list of neurologically defensible and assessable spatial-thinking skills. Research in Geographic Education, 8, 5–39.Google Scholar
  24. Gersmehl, P., & Gersmehl, C. (2007). Spatial thinking by young children: What can they do and when can they do it? Journal of Geography, 106(5), 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gersmehl, P., & Gersmehl, C. (2011). Spatial thinking: Where pedagogy meets neuroscience. Problems of Education in the Twenty-First Century, 27, 47–65. (Special issue on geography education).Google Scholar
  26. Gilmartin, P. P. (1981). Influences of map context on circle perception. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 71(2), 253–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gregg, M. (1999). Mapping success: Reversing the Matthew effect. Research in Geographic Education, 1(2), 118–135.Google Scholar
  28. Guelke, L. (1977). Cartographic communication and geographic understanding. Cartographica, 14(1), 129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harel, A., Gilaie-Dotan, S., Malach, R., & Bentin, S. (2010). Top-down engagement modulates the neural expression of visual expertise. Cerebral Cortex, 21(10), 2604–2618.Google Scholar
  30. Harley, J. B. (1989). Deconstructing the map. Cartographica, 26, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koláčný, A. (1969). Cartographic information—a fundamental concept and term in modern cartography. The Cartographic Journal, 6(1), 47–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kosslyn, S. M. (1993). Elements of graph design. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  34. Kosslyn, S. M. (2006). Graph design for the eye and mind. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee, C. H., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Effectiveness of on-screen pinyin in learning Chinese: An expertise reversal for multimedia redundancy effect. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liben, L. S., & Yekel, C. A. (1996). Preschoolers’ understanding of plan and oblique maps: The role of geometric and representational correspondence. Child Development, 67, 2780–2796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Loewenstein, J., & Gentner, D. (2005). Relational language and the development of relational mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 50, 315–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Longo, M. R., & Lourenco, S. F. (2007). Spatial attention and the mental number line: Evidence for characteristic biases and compression. Neuropsychologia, 45, 1400–1407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. MacConnell, A., & Daehler, M. W. (2004). The development of representational insight: Beyond the model/room paradigm. Cognitive Development, 19(3), 345–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. MacEachren, A. M. (1995). How maps work. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  41. Maharawal, M. M., & McElroy, E. (2018). The anti-eviction mapping project: Counter mapping and oral history toward Bay Area housing justice. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 108(2), 380–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mashour, G. A. (2018). The controversial correlates of consciousness. Science, 360(6388), 493–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McNaughton, B., Chen, L. L., & Markus, E. J. (1991). “Dead reckoning”, landmark learning, and the sense of direction: A neurophysiological and computational hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 190–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Muehrcke, P. (2005). Map use: Reading, analysis, and interpretation. Madison: JP Publications.Google Scholar
  45. Newcombe, N. S., & Huttenlocher, J. (1992). Children’s early ability to solve perspective-taking problems. Developmental Psychology, 28, 635–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Newcombe, N. S., & Huttenlocher, J. (2000). Making space: The development of spatial representation and reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nieder, A., & Miller, E. K. (2005). Coding of cognitive magnitude: Compressed scaling of numerical information. Neuron, 37, 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pfost, M., Hattie, J., Dörfler, T., & Artelt, C. (2014). Individual differences in reading development: A review of 25 years of empirical research on Matthew effects in reading. Review of Educational Research, 84(2), 203–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  50. Plumert, J. M., & Spencer, J. P. (2007). The emerging spatial mind. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Prestopnik, J. L., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, B. (2000). The relations among wayfinding strategy use, sense of direction, sex, familiarity, and wayfinding ability. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rescorla, M. (2009). Predication and cartographic representation. Synthese, 169(1), 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rey, G. D., & Buchwald, F. (2011). The expertise reversal effect: Cognitive load and motivational explanations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 33–48.Google Scholar
  54. Robinson, A. H., & Petchenik, B. B. (1975). The map as a communication system. The Cartographic Journal, 12(1), 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rossano, M. J., & Morrison, T. T. (1996). Learning from maps: General processes and map-structure influences. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 109–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & PDP Research Group. (1987). Parallel distributed processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shigihara, Y., & Zeki, S. (2014). Parallel processing in the brain’s visual form system: An fMRI study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 506–514.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Siegler, R. S., & Opfer, J. E. (2003). The development of numerical estimation: Evidence for multiple representations of numerical quantity. Psychological Science, 14, 237–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Silson, E. H., McKeefry, D. J., Rodgers, J., Gouws, A. D., Hymers, M., & Morland, A. B. (2013). Specialized and independent processing of orientation and shape in visual field maps LO1 and LO2. Nature Neuroscience, 16(3), 267–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern geographies, the reassertion of space on critical social theory. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  61. Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1998). Fashionable nonsense: Postmodern intellectuals’ abuse of science. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  62. Tada, W. L., & Stiles, J. (1996). Developmental change in children’s analysis of spatial patterns. Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 951–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thorndyke, P. W., & Stasz, C. (1979). Individual differences in knowledge acquisition from maps. Office of Naval Research R-2375-ONR.Google Scholar
  64. Turk-Browne, N. B., Scholl, B. J., Chun, M. M., & Johnson, M. K. (2008). Neural evidence of statistical learning: Efficient detection of visual regularities without awareness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(10), 1934–1945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2018). Available at https://www.eia.gov/state/maps.php. Accessed 4 July 2018.
  66. Uttal, D. H. (2000). Seeing the big picture: Map use and the development of spatial cognition. Developmental Science, 3(3), 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Veenman, M. V. J., & Elshout, J. J. (1999). Changes in the relation between cognitive and metacognitive skills during the acquisition of expertise. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(4), 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Michigan Geographic AllianceCentral Michigan UniversityMount PleasantUSA
  2. 2.New York Center for Geographic LearningNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations