Documenting Children’s Spatial Reasoning through Art: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Peter Tang and Version 1 by Christine Lee.

Spatial reasoning is the understanding of how both people and objects interact with, and relate to, one another. This entry examines how children’s art can document emergent sensemaking of spatial reasoning.

  • spatial reasoning
  • STEAM education
  • play
  • environmental education

1. Introduction

Over the last few years, there has been a push for the teaching and learning of spatial reasoning in K-12 classrooms. Spatial reasoning, or spatial thinking, relates to how objects and shapes organize, interact, move, and relate to one another [1,2][1][2]. What makes spatial reasoning unique is that it requires us to critically think about the concept of space. It asks us to consider how the objects and shapes that make up the world are organized in different ways [3]. The field of mathematics education often utilizes spatial thinking to develop geometric language and knowledge of shapes [4]. However, as science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) education [5] has gained attention and traction in education, many scholars have argued that spatial reasoning is visible in these other disciplines [6,7][6][7]. Not only does this include the situated practices of spatial reasoning in disciplinary work, but it also has visibility in everyday activities such as navigating, reading maps, or parallel parking.

2. Spatial Reasoning in Elementary Education

Spatial reasoning is the understanding of objects’ locations, movements, and relationships in space [3]. It considers how we navigate through the world, mentally transform and envision images, and create representations [1,2][1][2]. Spatial reasoning also helps us to recognize how both static and dynamic objects are organized in space. For instance, we can imagine how different a rectangle would look if we folded it horizontally versus diagonally. When we define and think of spatial reasoning in this way, it fits well with geometric thinking, because it requires us to know how to build and mentally manipulate and transform shapes and objects. As a result, math educators and researchers often position spatial reasoning as a way to learn and identify shapes as both two- and three-dimensional objects (e.g., circles, cylinders, triangles, pyramids). These shapes can then be characterized in ways that geometrically define and describe them [8,9,10,11][8][9][10][11]. For example, a square has four straight lines and four equal internal angles, while triangles are made up of three sides and three angles. However, spatial reasoning is more than the ability to mentally transform, decompose, and recompose shapes [12,13][12][13]. Spatial reasoning also requires us to examine these objects as they move in space [3,13,14][3][13][14]—how they look when they are rotated, how parts of objects can fit together, how locations of objects relate to one another, and how they are viewed from different perspectives and angles. These dynamic ways of utilizing spatial reasoning skills not only help us to orientate in space, but help us to understand the interactions and relationships between objects and people in our geometric world [3]. They ask us to understand the diversity of interactions, relationships, and dynamic movements between structures, aligning well with STEAM education [2,15][2][15].

3. Spatial Reasoning as Dynamic and Embodied STEAM Sensemaking

While spatial reasoning has historically been taken up in mathematics education, there has been a growth in the literature that advocates that spatial reasoning is “in domains that are not, on the surface, obviously spatial” [4] (p. 102). Many scholars have identified spatial reasoning skills, such as perspective-taking and scaling, which are closely tied to everyday practices and professions outside of mathematics [7,14,15][7][14][15]. A notable example of the importance of understanding shapes, size, and orientation was when German scientist Alfred Wegener proposed the continental drift theory by observing how the coastlines of South America and Africa fit together into a supercontinent [16]. There are several more examples of how scientific fields utilize spatial thinking; surgeons visualize areas in the body to plan for a surgical procedure, chemists can use three-dimensional models and illustrations to visually represent molecular structures, and geoscientists not only study other people’s maps and visualizations, but need to recognize and classify shapes and objects in their work [17]. When we think of spatial reasoning in this way, it becomes visible and meaningful in everyday life, existing in a variety of moving figures and objects that make up our geometric world [7,18][7][18]. Whether we are aware of it or not, we are constantly making sense of the space around us; from fitting a car seat into vehicles, assembling furniture, planting gardens, and navigating to places [3]. Spatial reasoning is “integral to everyday life. People, natural objects, human-made objects, and human-made structures exist somewhere in space, and the interactions of people and things must be understood in terms of locations, distances, directions, shapes, and patterns” [3] (p. 5). Thus, not only is spatial thinking about understanding the dynamic interactions between human-made objects and structures, but interactions within nature, and between the human-made and natural world. These dynamic ways of understanding spatial relationships between people and nature not only have potential in STEAM learning, but can also address the need for climate literacy and environmental education [19]. Understanding the patterns of human and natural relations can help us understand environmental issues and how we impact or cause these problems [20]. Therefore, spatial reasoning is not only about being aware of space, but it requires us to consider how we utilize space, impact space, and inform the decisions we make while interacting in both the human and natural world [3,7,21][3][7][21]. As part of recognizing the dynamic nature of spatial reasoning, scholars have argued that spatial thinking instinctively requires the body as an essential tool for understanding spatial organizations and movements [22]. Several studies have already showcased the integral and interwoven relationship between gestures and mathematics [23,24][23][24] and have found that learners produce gestures to communicate understanding and meaning [7,22,25][7][22][25]. In science education research, we continue to see the inseparability of learning from the body and multimodal resources such as affect or emotions [26,27][26][27]. One of the commonalities across these studies is the iterative and reflective process of embodiment as we think aloud and learn [7,28][7][28]. These studies have shown how the body can become a sensemaking resource to experience, question, and reflect on the interactions that make up our world [27,28][27][28]. Embodiment is not a static resource, but an everchanging and dynamic part of sensemaking. This body of literature encourages educators and researchers to consider the embodied nature of spatial reasoning, and how these dynamic sensemaking experiences are part of the process of understanding our moving world [29,30][29][30].

4. Children’s Art as Act and Artifact of Spatial Reasoning

Drawing has been one of the most common school activities in elementary education, with children’s artwork frequently displayed on classroom walls [31,32][31][32]. The research on children’s drawings has not only found art essential in developing fine motor skills, creativity, expressing emotions, and storytelling [33[33][34],34], but as a method for assessing development and spatial skills [35]. However, in recent years, several scholars have warned educators and researchers of the danger of examining children’s drawings as isolated assessment tasks, because it can lead us to focus on what children cannot developmentally do, instead of understanding what they can do [29,36][29][36]. Children’s drawings, even in early scribbles, are a way for children to think through and communicate what they know about the world [35,37][35][37]. Modern research into mathematics furthers this notion, as scholars have embraced embodied approaches to learning, “drawing is not a matter of confirming an external world by fixing it and statically representing it, but a process of ‘thinking’ a world by making information available as part of and through a specific human perceptual experience in the process of becoming” [32] (p. 468). Thom & McGarvey [32] argue that children’s drawings are not only an artifact that reveals spatial knowledge, but are an act or a way of sensemaking as children actively explore and wrestle with early geometric thinking. Their analysis of children’s drawings over time [32] demonstrates the woven nature of embodiment, art, and spatial reasoning.

References

  1. Clements, D.H. Geometric and spatial thinking in young children. In Mathematics in the Early Years; Copley, J.V., Ed.; National Association for the Education of Young Children: Washington, DC, USA, 1999; pp. 66–79.
  2. Early Childhood Maths Group. Spatial Reasoning in Early Childhood; Early Childhood Maths Group: 2022. Available online: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/jnwpu (accessed on 10 March 2023).
  3. National Research Council. Learning to Think Spatially: GIS as a Support System in the K-12 Curriculum; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
  4. Newcombe, N.S.; Frick, A. Early education for spatial intelligence: Why, what, And how. Mind Brain Educ. 2010, 4, 102–111.
  5. Liao, C. From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary: An arts-integrated approach to STEAM education. Art Educ. 2016, 69, 44–49.
  6. Hsi, S.; Linn, M.C.; John, E. The role of spatial reasoning in engineering and the design of spatial instruction. J. Eng. Educ. 1997, 86, 151–158.
  7. Stieff, M.; Lira, M.; Scopelitis, S. Gesture supports spatial thinking in STEM. Cogn. Instr. 2016, 34, 80–99.
  8. Battista, M.T. The importance of spatial structuring in geometric reasoning. Natl. Counc. Teach. Math. 1999, 6, 170–177.
  9. Battista, M.T.; Clements, D.H. Finding the number of cubes in rectangular cube buildings. Teach. Child. Math. 1998, 4, 258–264.
  10. Clements, D.H.; Battista, M.T.; Sarama, J.; Swaminathan, S. Development of students’ spatial thinking in a unit on geometric motions and area. Elem. Sch. J. 1997, 98, 171–186.
  11. Verdine, B.; Lucca, K.; Golinkoff, R.M.; Hirsh-Pasek, K.; Newcombe, N.S. The shape of things: The origin of young children’s knowledge of the names and properties of geometric forms. J. Cogn. Dev. 2016, 17, 142–161.
  12. Chavez, O.; Reys, R.; Jones, D. Spatial visualization: What happens when you turn it? Math. Teach. Middle Sch. 2005, 11, 190–196.
  13. Newcombe, N. Harnessing spatial thinking to support stem learning. In OECD Education Working Papers; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2017; Volume 161.
  14. Ng, O.L.; Sinclair, N. Young children reasoning about symmetry in a dynamic geometry environment. ZDM Math. Educ. 2015, 47, 421–434.
  15. Wai, J.; Lubinski, D.; Benbow, C.P. Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. J. Educ. Psychol. 2009, 101, 817–835.
  16. Kastens, K.A.; Manduca, C.A.; Cervato, C.; Frodeman, R.; Goodwin, C.; Liben, L.S.; Mogk, D.W.; Spangler, T.C.; Stillings, N.A.; Titus, S. How geoscientists think and learn. Eos. Trans. AGU 2009, 90, 265–266.
  17. Kastens, K.A.; Ishikawa, T. Spatial thinking in the geosciences and cognitive sciences: A cross-disciplinary look at the intersection of the two fields. In Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth: Geological Society of America; Manduca, C.A., Mogk, D.W., Eds.; Geological Society of America: Boulder, CO, USA, 2006; Volume 413, pp. 53–76.
  18. Ishikawa, T.; Newcombe, N.S. Why spatial is special in education, learning, everyday activities. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 2021, 6, 20.
  19. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Climate Change Education for Sustainable Development. 2010. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000190101 (accessed on 10 March 2023).
  20. Kamel Boulos, M.N.; Wilson, J.P. Geospatial techniques for monitoring and mitigating climate change and its effects on human health. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2023, 22, 2.
  21. Weyer, M.; Dell’Erba, M.; Research and Policy Implications of STEAM Education for Young Students. Education Commision of the States. 2022. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED620439.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2023).
  22. Thom, J.S. (Re)(con)fguring space: Three children’s geometric reasonings. In Contemporary Research and Perspectives on Early Childhood Mathematics Education; Elia, I., Mulligan, J., Anderson, A., Baccaglini-Frank, A., Benz, C., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 131–158.
  23. Goldin-Meadow, S. How gesture works to change our minds. Trends Neurosci. Educ. 2014, 3, 4–6.
  24. Goldin-Meadow, S.; Cook, S.W.; Mitchell, Z.A. Gesturing gives children new ideas about math. Psychol. Sci. 2009, 20, 267–272.
  25. Vogelstein, L.; Brady, C.; Hall, R. Reenacting mathematical concepts found in large-scale dance performance can provide both material and method for ensemble learning. ZDM Math. Educ. 2019, 51, 331–346.
  26. Jaber, L.Z.; Hammer, D. Learning to feel like a scientist. Sci. Educ. 2016, 100, 189–220.
  27. Lee, C. Creativity. In Talking with Children: A Handbook of Interaction in Early Childhood Education; Church, A., Bateman, A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022; pp. 247–265.
  28. Keifert, D.; Lee, C.; Enyedy, N.; Dahn, M.; Lindberg, L.; Danish, J. Tracing bodies through liminal blends in a mixed reality learning environment. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2020, 42, 3093–3115.
  29. Atit, K.; Uttal, D.H.; Stieff, M. Situating space: Using a discipline-focused lens to examine spatial thinking skills. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 2020, 5, 1–16.
  30. Lakoff, G.; Núñez, R.E. Where Mathematics Comes from: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
  31. Schroeder-Yu, G. Documentation: Ideas and applications from Reggio Emilia Approach. Teach. Artist. J. 2008, 6, 126–134.
  32. Thom, J.S.; McGarvey, L.M. The act and artifact of drawing(s): Observing geometric thinking with, in, and through children’s drawings. ZDM Math. Educ. 2015, 47, 465–481.
  33. Masi, C. Drawing for learning: A review of the literature. Draw. Res. Theory Pract. 2021, 6, 199–218.
  34. Ring, K. Supporting young children drawing: Developing a role. Int. J. Educ. Through Art 2006, 2, 195–209.
  35. Papandreou, M. Communicating and thinking through drawing activity in early childhood. J. Res. Child. Educ. 2014, 28, 85–100.
  36. Matthews, J. Drawing and Painting: Children and Visual Representation, 2nd ed.; Paul Chapman Publishing: London, UK, 2003.
  37. Ainsworth, S.; Prain, V.; Tytler, R. Drawing to learn in science. Science 2011, 333, 1096–1097.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback