Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T03:06:51.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Spatial Representations and Imagery in Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Daniel L. Schwartz  and
Julie Heiser
Edited by
R. Keith Sawyer
Daniel L. Schwartz
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Julie Heiser
Affiliation:
Adobe Systems, Inc.
R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
Washington University, St Louis
Get access

Summary

Spatial representations, when used well, support learning in reading, mathematics, and science. They also enable mental simulations and visualizations that prompt innovation and scientific discovery. Spatial representations, both external drawings and internal images, exploit people's sophisticated perceptual-motor system. The embodiment of thought in perceptual processes has promising implications for learning. In this chapter, we emphasize spatial representations that people construct and transform in their mind's eye. The process of working with these mental spatial representations is called imagery.

Spatial representation is different from other forms of cognitive representation studied by learning scientists – linguistic, conceptual, logical – because spatial representations partake of perceptual processes and experiences. Neurological evidence, for example, indicates that perceptual regions of the brain activate when people imagine movement (Kosslyn, 1994). Yet, spatial representations are not mere echoes of perception. They can integrate nonperceptual knowledge that allows people to imagine things they have not seen. Spatial representations have four key properties that determine their unique value for education. We begin with a brief review of early psychological research on spatial memory, and then describe the four key properties. We show how these properties can be used to help people learn about the world through mental models and simulations. Afterward, we discuss ways to help people leverage imagery to innovate new ideas and scientific insight.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 283 - 298
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alibali, M. W., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1993). Gesture-speech mismatch and mechanisms of learning: What the hands reveal about a child's state of mind. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 468–523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baenninger, M., & Newcombe, N. (1989). The role of experience in spatial test performance: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 20, 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamberger, J. (1991). The mind behind the musical ear: How children develop musical intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Biswas, G., Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & TAG-V. (2001). Technology support for complex problem solving: From SAD environments to AI. In Forbus, K. & Feltovich, P. (Eds.), Smart machines in education (pp. 71–98). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bower, G. H., Karlin, M. B., & Dueck, A. (1975). Comprehension and memory for pictures. Memory & Cognition, 3, 216–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bransford, J. D., Barclay, J. R., & Franks, J. J. (1972). Sentence memory: A constructive versus interpretive approach. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. D. (1989). New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom can't be told. In Vosniadou, S. & Ortony, A. (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 470–497). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, L. R. (1968). Spatial and verbal components of the act of recall. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 22, 349–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, D., & Reisberg, D. (1985). Can mental images be ambiguous? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 317–28.Google Scholar
Clement, J. (1994). Use of physical intuition and imagistic simulation in expert problem solving. In Tirosh, D. (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Cummins, R. (1989). Meaning and mental representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
diSessa, A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Metarepresentational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117–16.Google Scholar
Eisner, E. W. (1972). Educating artistic vision. New York: Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Farah, M., Rochlin, R., Klein, K. (1994). Orientation invariance and geometric primitives in shape recognition. Cognitive Science, 18, 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finke, R. (1990). Creative imagery: Discoveries and inventions in visualization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1982). Art, mind and brain. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1962). Observations on active touch. Psychological Review, 69, 477–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, J. J., & Gibson, E. J. (1955). Perceptual learning: Differentiation or enrichment. Psychological Review, 62, 32–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J. R., Japuntich, S., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children's reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 424–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96, 606–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, R. L. (1966). Eye and brain. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.Google Scholar
Hegarty, M. (1992). Mental animation: Inferring motion from static diagrams of mechanical systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 1084–1102.Google ScholarPubMed
Hegarty, M. (2000). Capacity limits in diagrammatic reasoning. In Anderson, M., Cheng, P., & Haarslev, V. (Eds.). Theory and application of diagrams. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heiser, J. (2004). External Representations as Insights to Cognition: Production and Comprehension of Text and Diagrams in Instructions. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Klatzky, R. L., Pellegrino, J. W., McCloskey, B. P., & Doherty, S. (1989). Can you squeeze a tomato? The role of motor representations in semantic sensibility judgments. Journal of Memory & Language, 28, 56–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krist, H., Fieberg, E., & Wilkening, F. (1993). Intuitive physics in action and judgment: The development of knowledge about projectile motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 952–966.Google Scholar
Larkin, J., & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mani, K., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1982). The mental representation of spatial descriptions. Memory & Cognition 10, 181–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. L. (in press). Physically distributed learning: Adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
McCloskey, M. (1983) Naive theories of motion. In Gentner, D. and Stevens, A. (Eds.), Mental models, (pp. 229–324). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Morrow, D. G., & Clark, H. H. (1988). Interpreting words in spatial descriptions. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 275–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrow, D. G., Greenspan, S. L., & Bower, G. H. (1987). Accessibility and situation models in narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nathan, M. J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2000). An investigation of teachers' beliefs of students' algebra development. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 209–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, R. S., & Adams, J. J. (1979). Long-term memory for a common object. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 287–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, L. M. (1987). Imagined spatial transformations of one's hands and feet. Cognitive Psychology 19, 178–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reiser, J. J., Garing, A. E., & Young, M. E. (1994). Imagery, action, and young children's spatial orientation. It's not being there that counts, it's what one has in mind. Child Development, 65, 1262–1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rock, I., & Di Vita, J. (1987). A case of viewer-centered object perception. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 280–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoenfeld, A. (1992) Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition and sense making in mathematics. In Grouws, D. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics thinking and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Schwartz, D. L. (1993). The construction and analogical transfer of symbolic visualizations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1309–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, D. L., & Black, J. B. (1996). Shuttling between depictive models and abstract rules: Induction and fallback. Cognitive Science, 20, 457–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, D. L., & Black, T. (1999). Inferences through imagined actions: knowing by simulated doing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 116–136.Google Scholar
Schwartz, D. L., Blair, K. P., Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., & Davis, J. (in press). Animations of thought: Interactivity in the teachable agent paradigm. To appear in Lowe, R. & Schnotz, W. (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research and implications for design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. L. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. (in press). In Mestre, J. (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary persepctive. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Schwartz, D. L., & Holton, D. (2000). Tool use and the effect of action on the imagination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Cognition, and Memory, 26, 1655–1665.Google ScholarPubMed
Shelton, A. L., & McNamara, T. P. (2001). Visual memories from non-visual experiences. Psychological Science, 12, 343–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N. (1967). Recognition memory for words, sentences and pictures. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N., & Cooper, L. A. (1986). Mental images and their transformation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Simons, D. J., & Wang, R. F. (1998). Perceiving real-world viewpoint changes. Psychological Science, 9, 315–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Standing, L. (1973). Learning 10,000 pictures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevens, A., & Coupe, P. (1978). Distortions in judged spatial relations. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 422–437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies, 18, 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertheimer, M. (1938). Laws of organization in perceptual forms. In Ellis, W. B. (Ed.), A sourcebook of gestalt psychology, (pp. 71–88). New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, M., & Klam, F. (2001). Movement prediction and movement production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 48–64.Google ScholarPubMed
Wohlschlåger, A., & Wolshlåger, A. (1998). Mental and manual rotation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 397–412.Google ScholarPubMed
Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In Ross, B. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 43 (pp. 35–62). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×