Six Myths About Spatial Thinking

Abstract

Visualizations are an increasingly important part of scientific education and discovery. However, users often do not gain knowledge from them in a complete or efficient way. This article aims to direct research on visualizations in science education in productive directions by reviewing the evidence for widespread assumptions that learning styles, sex differences, developmental stages, and spatial language determine the impact of visualizations on science learning. First, we examine the assumption that people differ in their verbal versus visual learning style. Due to the lack of rigorous evaluation, there is no current support for this distinction. Future research should distinguish between two different kinds of visual learning style. Second, we consider the belief that there are large and intractable sex differences in spatial ability resultant from immutable biological reasons. Although there are some spatial sex differences (in some types of spatial tests although not all), there is actually only very mixed support for biological causation. Most important, there is conclusive evidence that spatial skills can be improved through training and education. Third, we explore educators' use of Piaget's ideas about spatial development to draw conclusions about ‘developmental appropriateness’. However, recent research on spatial development has focused on identifying sequences that begin with early starting points of skill, and spatial education is possible in some form at all ages. Fourth, although spatial language does not determine spatial thought, it does frame attention in a way that can have impact on learning and understanding. We examine the empirical support for each assumption and its relevance to future research on visualizations in science education.