Measuring the role of spatial ability and multiple external representations in introductory geology students’ knowledge of plate tectonics

References

• Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2–3), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00029-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkins, R. M., & McNeal, K. S. (2018). Exploring differences among student populations during climate graph reading tasks: An eye tracking study. Journal of Astronomy & Earth Sciences Education (JAESE), 5(2), 85–114. https://doi.org/10.19030/jaese.v5i2.10219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science (New York, N.Y.), 255(5044), 556–559. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1736359
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, K. M., Johnson, A. C., Callahan, C. N., & Petcovic, H. L. (2016). Use of cartographic images by expert and novice field geologists in planning fieldwork routes. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 43(2), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2015.1072735
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, A. A. (2005). Spatial ability and earth science conceptual understanding. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 402–414. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.4.402
   Google Scholar
• Bodner, G. M., & Guay, R. B. (1997). The Purdue visualization of rotations test. The Chemical Educator, 2(4), 1–17. [Database] https://doi.org/10.1007/s00897970138a
   Google Scholar
• Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1979). A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica, 47(5), 1287–1294. [Database] https://doi.org/10.2307/1911963
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooke, J. (1996). SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry, 189(194), 4–7.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, S. K., Libarkin, J. C., Kortz, K. M., & Jordan, S. C. (2011). Alternative conceptions of plate tectonics held by nonscience undergraduates. Journal of Geoscience Education, 59(4), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.5408/1.3651696
   Google Scholar
• Conrad, D., & Libarkin, J. C. (2022). Using Conceptual Metaphor Theory within the Model of Educational Reconstruction to identify students’ alternative conceptions and improve instruction: A plate tectonics example. Journal of Geoscience Education, 70(2), 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2021.1983941
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, J., Anderson, S. W., & Libarkin, J. C. (2005). Digging into earth science: Alternative conceptions held by K-12 teachers. Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 65.
   Google Scholar
• Ding, L., & Beichner, R. (2009). Approaches to data analysis of multiple-choice questions. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5(2), 020103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolphin, G., & Benoit, W. (2016). Students’ mental model development during historically contextualized inquiry: How the ‘tectonic plate’ metaphor impeded the process. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 276–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1140247
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doran, R. L. (1980). Basic measurement and evaluation of science instruction. National Science Teachers Association. (Stock No. 471-14764; no price quoted).
   Google Scholar
• Francek, M. (2013). A compilation and review of over 500 geoscience misconceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 35(1), 31–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.736644
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, A., Kohler, B., Gunalp, P., Boone, A. P., & Hegarty, M. (2020). A computerized spatial orientation test. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 799–812.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gobert, J. D. (2000). A typology of causal models for plate tectonics: Inferential power and barriers to understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 937–977. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416857
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gobert, J. D. (2005). The effects of different learning tasks on model-building in plate tectonics: Diagramming versus explaining. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 444–455. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.4.444
   Google Scholar
• Gold, A. U., Pendergast, P. M., Ormand, C. J., Budd, D. A., Stempien, J. A., Mueller, K. J., & Kravitz, K. A. (2018a). Spatial skills in undergraduate students—Influence of gender, motivation, academic training, and childhood play. Geosphere, 14(2), 668–683. https://doi.org/10.1130/GES01494.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gold, A. U., Pendergast, P. M., Ormand, C. J., Budd, D. A., & Mueller, K. J. (2018b). Improving spatial thinking skills among undergraduate geology students through short online training exercises. International Journal of Science Education, 40(18), 2205–2225. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1525621
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guay, R. (1976). Purdue spatial visualization test. Educational testing service.
   Google Scholar
• Guffey, S. K., & Slater, T. F. (2020). Geology misconceptions targeted by an overlapping consensus of US national standards and frameworks. International Journal of Science Education, 42(3), 469–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1715509
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hambrick, D. Z., Libarkin, J. C., Petcovic, H. L., Baker, K. M., Elkins, J., Callahan, C. N., Turner, S. P., Rench, T. A., & LaDue, N. D. (2012). A test of the circumvention-of-limits hypothesis in scientific problem solving: The case of geological bedrock mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 397–403. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025927
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannula, K. A. (2019). Do geology field courses improve penetrative thinking? Journal of Geoscience Education, 67(2), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2018.1548004
   Google Scholar
• Hegarty, M. (2004, March). Diagrams in the mind and in the world: Relations between internal and external visualizations [Paper presentation]. International Conference on Theory and Application of Diagrams (pp. 1–13). Springer
   Google Scholar
• Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. (2004). A dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities. Intelligence, 32(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2003.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kastens, K. A., Agrawal, S., & Liben, L. S. (2009). How students and field geologists reason in integrating spatial observations from outcrops to visualize a 3‐D geological structure. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 365–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802595797
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kastens, K. A., & Ishikawa, T. (2006). Spatial thinking in the geosciences and cognitive sciences: A cross-disciplinary look at the intersection of the two fields. Special Papers-Geological Society of America, 413, 53.
   Google Scholar
• Kastens, K. A., Shipley, T. F., Boone, A. P., & Straccia, F. (2016). What geoscience experts and novices look at, and what they see, when viewing data visualizations. Journal of Astronomy & Earth Sciences Education, 3(1), 27–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, C. (2000). The earth’s mantle is solid: Teachers’ misconceptions about the earth and plate tectonics. School Science Review, 82(298), 57–64.
   Google Scholar
• Kortz, K. M., Clark, S. K., Gray, K., Smay, J. J., Viveiros, B., & Steer, D. (2011). Counting tectonic plates: A mixed-methods study of college student conceptions of plates and boundaries. Qualitative Inquiry in Geoscience Education Research: Geological Society of America Special Paper, 474, 171–188.
   Google Scholar
• Kozhevnikov, M., & Hegarty, M. (2001). A dissociation between object manipulation spatial ability and spatial orientation ability. Memory & Cognition, 29(5), 745–756. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03200477
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press.
   Google Scholar
• Liben, L. S. (1978). Performance on Piagetian spatial tasks as a function of sex, field dependence, and training. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 24(2), 97–110.
   Google Scholar
• Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56(6), 1479–1498. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130467
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Libarkin, J. C., Anderson, S. W., Science, J. D., Beilfuss, M., & Boone, W. (2005). Qualitative analysis of college students’ ideas about the Earth: Interviews and open-ended questionnaires. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.1.17
   Google Scholar
• Maeda, Y., Yoon, S. Y., Kim-Kang, G., & Imbrie, P. K. (2013). Psychometric properties of the revised PSVT:R for measuring first year engineering students’ spatial ability. International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(3), 763–776.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marques, L., & Thompson, D. (1997). Misconceptions and conceptual changes concerning Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics among Portuguese students aged 16–17. Research in Science & Technological Education, 15(2), 195–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514970150206
   Google Scholar
• Marshak, S. (2015). Earth: Portrait of a planet: Fourth international student edition. WW Norton & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Marx, J. D., & Cummings, K. (2007). Normalized change. American Journal of Physics, 75(1), 87–91. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2372468
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 41, 31–48.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.3.389
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merriwether, A. M., & Liben, L. S. (1997). Adult’s failures on euclidean and projective spatial tasks: Implications for characterizing spatial cognition. Journal of Adult Development, 4(2), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02510081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Newcombe, N. S., & Shipley, T. F. (2015). Thinking about spatial thinking: New typology, new assessments. In Studying visual and spatial reasoning for design creativity (pp. 179–192). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Ormand, C. J., Manduca, C., Shipley, T. F., Tikoff, B., Harwood, C. L., Atit, K., & Boone, A. P. (2014). Evaluating geoscience students’ spatial thinking skills in a multi-institutional classroom study. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(1), 146–154. https://doi.org/10.5408/13-027.1
   Google Scholar
• Orion, N., Ben-Chaim, D., & Kali, Y. (1997). Relationship between earth-science education and spatial visualization. Journal of Geoscience Education, 45(2), 129–132. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-45.2.129
   Google Scholar
• Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1963). The child’s conception of space, by Jean Piaget and Barbel Inhelder (Langdon, F. J., & Lunzer, J. L. Trans.). International Library of Psychology, Philosophy and Scientific Method.
   Google Scholar
• Polifka, J. (2021). Investigating introductory science students’ knowledge of multiple representations using technology [Doctoral dissertation]. Iowa State University.
   Google Scholar
• Polifka, J. D., & Holme, T. A. (2019). Ensuring that test takers can use new chemistry assessments made possible by technology. In Technology Integration in Chemistry Education and Research (TICER) (pp. 167–175). American Chemical Society.
   Google Scholar
• Polifka, J. D., Baluyut, J. Y., & Holme, T. A. (2021). Technology, molecular representations, and student understanding in chemistry. In G. Tsaparlis (Ed.), Problems and problem solving in chemistry education, (pp. 323–339). Royal Society of Chemistry.
   Google Scholar
• Ramsey, F., & Schafer, D. (2012). The statistical sleuth: A course in methods of data analysis. Cengage Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Resnick, I., Kastens, K. A., & Shipley, T. F. (2018). How students reason about visualizations from large professionally collected data sets: A study of students approaching the threshold of data proficiency. Journal of Geoscience Education, 66(1), 55–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2018.1411724
   Google Scholar
• Ryker, K., Jaeger, A. J., Brande, S., Guereque, M., Libarkin, J., & Shipley, T. F. (2018). Research on cognitive domain in geoscience learning: Temporal and spatial reasoning. In St. John, K (Ed.) Community framework for geoscience education research. National Association of Geoscience Teachers. https://doi.org/10.25885/ger_framework/7
   Google Scholar
• Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2014). The role of dynamic spatial ability in geoscience text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 31, 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.12.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawyer, D. S., Henning, A. T., Shipp, S., & Dunbar, R. W. (2005). A data rich exercise for discovering plate boundary processes. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.1.65
   Google Scholar
• Shipley, T. F., Tikoff, B., Ormand, C., & Manduca, C. (2013). Structural geology practice and learning, from the perspective of cognitive science. Journal of Structural Geology, 54, 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2013.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sibley, D. F. (2005). Visual abilities and misconceptions about plate tectonics. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 471–477. https://doi.org/10.5408/Sibley_v53p471
   Google Scholar
• Signorella, M. L., & Jamison, W. (1978). Sex differences in the correlations among field dependence, spatial ability, sex role orientation, and performance on Piaget’s water-level task. Developmental Psychology, 14(6), 689–690. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.14.6.689
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, G. A., & Bermea, S. B. (2012). Using students’ sketches to recognize alternative conceptions about plate tectonics persisting from prior instruction. Journal of Geoscience Education, 60(4), 350–359. https://doi.org/10.5408/11-251.1
   Google Scholar
• Stieff, M. (2007). Mental rotation and diagrammatic reasoning in science. Learning and Instruction, 17(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.01.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stieff, M., Hegarty, M., & Dixon, B. (2010, August). Alternative strategies for spatial reasoning with diagrams [Paper presentation]. International Conference on Theory and Application of Diagrams (pp. 115–127). Springer
   Google Scholar
• Stieff, M., Ryu, M., Dixon, B., & Hegarty, M. (2012). The role of spatial ability and strategy preference for spatial problem solving in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(7), 854–859. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed200071d
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185–233. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1203_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swenson, S., & Kastens, K. A. (2011). Student interpretation of a global elevation map: What it is, how it was made, and what it is useful for. Geological Society of America Special Papers, 474, 189–211.
   Google Scholar
• Theobald, R., & Freeman, S. (2014). Is it the intervention or the students? Using linear regression to control for student characteristics in undergraduate STEM education research. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe-13-07-0136
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Titus, S., & Horsman, E. (2009). Characterizing and improving spatial visualization skills. Journal of Geoscience Education, 57(4), 242–254. https://doi.org/10.5408/1.3559671
   Google Scholar
• Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 352–402. [Database] https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028446
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viskupic, K., Egger, A. E., McFadden, R. R., & Schmitz, M. D. (2021). Comparing desired workforce skills and reported teaching practices to model students’ experiences in undergraduate geoscience programs. Journal of Geoscience Education, 69(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2020.1779568
   Google Scholar
• Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welch, B. L. (1947). The generalization of student’s’ problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika, 34(1/2), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/2332510
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yue, J. (2008). Spatial visualization by realistic 3D views. The Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 72(1), 28–38.
   Google Scholar