Elsevier

Computers & Education

Volume 54, Issue 1, January 2010, Pages 123-135
Computers & Education

Enhancement of spatial thinking with Virtual Spaces 1.0

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.013Get rights and content

Abstract

Developing a software environment to enhance 3D geometric proficiency demands the consideration of theoretical views of the learning process. Simultaneously, this effort requires taking into account the range of tools that technology offers, as well as their limitations. In this paper, we report on the design of Virtual Spaces 1.0 software, a program that exercises the user’s abilities to build spatial images and to manipulate them. This paper also reports on a study that aimed to assess whether those abilities affected achievements in the spatial thinking of 10th graders who worked with the software. Additionally, we investigated whether self-regulating questions can improve the effect of exercising with Virtual Spaces 1.0. The sample was 192 students, who were randomly assigned to four groups, two of which used Virtual Spaces 1.0 (Group 1 with virtual reality and self-regulating questions N = 52, Group 2 with virtual realty only N = 52) and the other two the non-Virtual Spaces 1.0 (Group 3 self-regulating questions only N = 45, Group 4 non-treatment group N = 45). The results suggest that spatial thinking was enhanced by exercising with Virtual Spaces 1.0 and asking self-regulating questions. In addition, it was found that the self-regulating questions make the use of virtual reality more efficient, and that the influence of self-regulating questions is especially manifested in tasks that make use of high order skills.

Introduction

In recent years, software environments have emerged that are designed to assist the teaching of geometry in schools, e.g., Cabri-Geometer (Laborde, 2000), and Geometer’s SketchPad (Jackiw, 1995). These programs were successfully used in the teaching and learning of geometry because of an interactive style that allowed direct manipulation of geometric objects (Christou, Jones, Mousoulides, & Pittalis, 2006). However, at present, such use remains primarily restricted to the 2D drawing canvas on the computer screen (Christou et al., 2006, p. 168). Even in software environments designed to enhance the 3D effect, e.g., 3D-Lab (Hidaka, 1994) and 3DMath (Christou et al., 2006), students are still viewing flat shapes on the computer screen. It seems that this sort of 3D data presentation is not necessarily appropriate for dealing with the difficulties encountered in the teaching of 3-D geometry, where most students find it difficult to imagine simple rotations of objects (Pani, Chariker, Dawson, & Johnson, 2005).
In general, there are several reasons why students have difficulty understanding 3-D geometry: (1) The transition from drawing two-dimensional constructs to imagining and manipulating three-dimensional objects is neither natural nor easy (Guttiérez, 1996); (2) Students are unable to make accurate drawings of spatial objects; (3) Students lack a visual vocabulary pertaining to spatial geometry; (4) There is insufficient interaction with three-dimensional objects (O’Driscoll-Tole, 1998); and (5) There is a lack of attention paid to verbal processes involved in learning 3-D geometry (Battista, 1994). It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the effect of interaction with two-dimensional objects in the classroom, such as drawing on the blackboard or in a notebook, clicking on a PC’s screen, or watching three-dimensional objects, which the teacher brings to class, does not sufficiently enhance the student’s ability to construct a spatial image and to manipulate it when trying to solve a problem in 3-D geometry (Garrity, 1998, Gurny, 2003).
The question arises as to what extent the technology of virtual reality (hereafter VR) can help students acquire proficiency in geometry that will help them cope with these difficulties. In this paper, we suggest that the advancement of spatial thinking, by using the software Virtual Spaces 1.0, may be an effective starting point.

Section snippets

Spatial thinking

According to Duval (1995, as cited in Jones, 1998, p. 32) proficiency in geometry can be advanced by three processes: visualisation processes (e.g., perception of spatial relations between two objects and perceptual constancy), construction processes (e.g., creation of spatial images and mental rotation), and reasoning processes (e.g., solving simple problems and exercises). These processes are basic elements of spatial thinking and the 3-D geometry curriculum in our schools (Yakimanskaya, 1991

Participants

Participants in this study were 194 tenth-grade students in six comprehensive high schools (52% boys and 48% girls, average age 15:2). In each school, all the students in the tenth grade were invited to participate in a “VR project” and 213 students enlisted. Based on the results of the demographic questionnaire, only 194 were accepted because they used a PC at home on a daily basis (88% use a PC for games and 12% for other uses). Nineteen students either did not have a PC at home (three

Results

The recent study was designed to test two hypotheses that were put forward in light of the theories and assumptions presented above. The first hypothesis was that the achievements of the students who practiced with Virtual Spaces 1.0 and SRQ would be higher than that of students who practiced without this combination.
To test the first hypothesis, one-directional analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the pre-test grades. The analysis showed that there were no differences between the four

Discussion and implications

The main purpose of the current research was to determine if exercising abilities that advance the building and manipulation of a spatial image with virtual software environments can enhance spatial thinking.
Before we discuss the results of the present research, we must point out that the discussion of the findings relating to this question is somewhat limited. This is because, to the best of our knowledge, there has been almost no research performed that dealt with this question in the same

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Prof. A. Cohen for his guiding comments.

References (62)

  • J. Pani et al.

    Acquiring new spatial intuitions: Learning to reason about rotations

    Cognitive Psychology

    (2005)
  • R. Vollmeyer et al.

    A surprising effect of feedback on learning

    Learning and Instruction

    (2005)
  • B.A. Allen et al.

    Construct validation of metacognition

    The Journal of Psychology

    (1993)
  • M.B. Arnold

    Memory and the brain

    (1984)
  • R. Azevedo

    Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool or enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning

    Educational Psychologist

    (2005)
  • M.T. Battista

    On Greeno’s environmental/model view of conceptual domains: A spatial/geometric perspective

    Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

    (1994)
  • M. Bricken et al.

    Summer students in virtual reality: A pilot study on educational applications of virtual reality technology

  • D.J. Bryant

    A spatial representation system in humans. Target article on space

    Psycoloquy

    (1992)
  • C. Christou et al.

    Developing the 3DMath dynamic geometry software: Theoretical perspectives on design

    International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education

    (2006)
  • T. Clausen-May

    Teaching maths to pupils with different learning styles

    (2005)
View full text
Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.