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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Baddeley, A. (1992). Is working memory working? The fifteenth Barlett lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 44A(1):1–31.
Baddeley, A.D. and Lieberman, K. (1980). Spatial working memory. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance, Vol. VIII. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bennet, C.K. (1969). Bennet mechanical comprehension test. New York: Psychological Corporation.
Carroll, J.B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytical studies. Cambridge University Press, UK: Cambridge.
Cattell, R.B. (1952). Factor analysis: An introduction and manual for the psychologists and social scientists. New York: Harper.
Chi, M.T.H. and Glaser, R. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
Dictionary of Occupation Titles (1991). U.S. Department of labor, employment and training administration. U.S. Employment Service, Career Press, Washington, DC.
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.
Ekstrom, R.B., French, J.W. and Harman, H.H. (1976). Manual for kit of factor referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Ericsson, K.A. and Smith, J. (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise. Cambridge University Press, UK: Cambridge.
Fallside, D.C. (1988). Understanding machines in motion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Halloun, I.A. and Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics 53:1043–1055.
Hegarty, M. and Sims, V.K. (1994). Individual differences in mental animation during mechanical reasoning. Memory and Cognition 22:411–430.
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.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M. and Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. American Journal of Physics 30:141–154.
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.
Kosslyn, S.M., Care, K.R. and Wallach, R.W. (1984). Individual differences in mental imagery ability: A computational analysis. Cognition 18:195–243.
Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Students’ use if imagery in solving qualitative problems in kinematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Technion, Haifa, Israel.
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.
Larkin, J.H. and Simon, H.A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth the thousand words. Cognitive Science 11:65–100.
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.
McCloskey, M. (1983). Nave theories of motion In D. Gentner and A. Stevens (Eds), Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 229–324.
McGee, M.G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin 86:889–918.
Miller, A.I. (1986.) Imagery in scientific thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nerssesian, N.J. (1995). Should physicists preach what they practice? Science & Education 4:203–226.
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.
Psychological Corporation (1990). The mechanical reasoning test of the differential aptitude test. New York. 168 Appendices
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.
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.
Sims, V.K. and Hegarty, M. (1997). Mental animation in the visuospatial sketchpad: Evidence from dual-task studies. Memory & Cognition 25:321–332.
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.
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.
Smith, M. (1964). Spatial ability: Its educational and social significance. London: University of London Press.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer-Verlag London
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., Mayer, R. (2002). Spatial Abilities in Problem Solving in Kinematics. In: Anderson, M., Meyer, B., Olivier, P. (eds) Diagrammatic Representation and Reasoning. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0109-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0109-3_9
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-85233-242-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-0109-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive