Relationship of Earth Science Misconceptions and Conceptual Understanding and Three Types of Spatial Abilities in University Non-Science Majors

EARTH SCIENCE CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING: RELATIONSHIP OF INDIVIDUAL ITEM RESPONSES TO SPATIAL ABILITY SCORES

Alice A. (Jill) Black, Missouri State University

Abstract

This study investigates the relationship of scores on tests of three types of spatial ability with student performance on individual test items in a test of common Earth science misconceptions and broader conceptual difficulties. Previous research showed significa= nt correlations between scores o= n each of those types of spatial ability and the Earth Science Concepts (ESC) test. The 97 participants were administe= red the PVOR, DAT, and GEFT to me= asure mental rotation, spatial visualization, and spatial perception, respectively. They were also administered the ES= C, a valid and reliable 20 item test of Earth Science conceptual unde= rstanding. Demographic characteristics were assessed. Results indicated t= hat 45% of individual ESC items were significantly correlated with at least one of the three spat= ial ability scores. As hypothesiz= ed, mental rotation was most often correlated to specific items, followed by spatial visualization. &n= bsp; Astronomical movements and distances, topo= graphic map interpretation and geologic block diagrams were examples of item topics correlated = to spatial ability test scores. Although= no gender differences were previous= ly found on ESC test scores as a whole, gender differences were significant on four individual items.

Introduction

&nb= sp;

Many prominent Americans have expressed concern in recent years about the educat= ion of future U.S. scienti= sts (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006) and about the science education of the future U.S. workforce (National Center on Education= and the Economy, 2006). At the sa= me time, the number of Earth science-related problems faced by humans is increasing; these include energy supplies, global warming, extreme weather events, landuse issues, and coastal and inland erosion. Local Earth science issues are also common, such as collapse sinkholes in states like Fl= orida and Missouri.

Many students, however, exhibit difficulties in understanding Earth science concepts, and often harbor misconceptions.= This study investigated spatial ability and its relationship to univ= ersity students' performance on a test of Earth science concept understanding. Earlier results (Black, 2005) foun= d that scores on tests of three types of spatial ability were statistically relate= d to performance on a test of Earth science concept understanding. This study continues that research= at the level of performance on individual concepts rather than performance on = the test of Earth science understanding as a whole.

Previous Studies<= /o:p>

Earth Science Conceptual Understanding

= The call of scientific literacy for all that is associated with the current sci= ence education reform movement has stressed the importance of improved science understanding by all Americans, not only scientists. Although constructivist philosophy underlies current standards, learners may not be able to assimilate new information with previously held concepts if their previously held concepts= are not consistent with the ideas of scientists. Misconceptions have been reported = in many science disciplines, including the Earth sciences (Schoon, 1995; Phili= ps, 1991). Misconceptions sometim= es involve topics for which the scientific explanations are counter-intuitive,= and that students have experienced throughout their lifetimes. These include changes in seasons, evaporation of water, and moon phase. Some reported conceptual problems are therefore quite factual, often involving the cause of natural phenomena, while others are of a broader nat= ure (Hawkins, 2000), and can be called conceptual difficulties. These include understanding and interpretation of contour maps, air and satellite photos, wayfinding, and geologic and meteorologic block diagrams.

Spatial Abilities

= Although science educators aim to instill scientific literacy in all students, it is also acknowledged that not all humans possess identical intellectual abilit= ies (Petrill & Wilkerson, 2000). One of the areas in which differences have been noted is the subset = of intelligence termed spatial ability. This ability has been linked to high performance in science and math= (Lord & Rupert, 1995; Pallrand & Seeber, 1984).

= Spatial Ability Types

A num= ber of spatial abilities, or factors, have been identified. Researchers have not, however, rea= ched consensus about categorization of spatial abilities or tests that measure t= hose abilities. A number of classifications have been proposed; one classification scheme is that found= in the meta-analysis of Linn & Petersen (1985).

Linn = and Petersen (1985) delineated three spatial ability factors. They described spatial perception = as involving spatial relationships with respect to the orientation of the subject's own body, in spite of distracting information. They noted that "spatial perc= eption may be uniquely characterized by the possibility of relying on gravitational/kinesthetic cues" (p. 1490). They also related that "the o= ther feature of spatial perception tasks is a focus on disembedding or overcoming distracting cues" (p. 1482).

They describe mental rotation as a "Gestalt-like" process involving the "rotation of a two- or three-dimensional figure rapidly and accurately" (Linn & Petersen, 1985). Persons who can use such a strateg= y of holistic rotation can typically perform mental rotation tasks more quickly = than those who rely on a part-by-part analytic strategy. Some researchers report that three-dimensional rotation is more difficult than is two-dimensional rotati= on.

Spati= al visualization is "characterized by analytic combination of both visual= and nonvisual strategies" that involves. . . "complicated, multistep manipulations of spatially presented information" (Linn & Petersen, 1985, p. 1491). Tasks typical= of spatial visualization involve "processes required for spatial percepti= on and mental rotations but are distinguished by the possibilities of multiple solution strategies" (p. 1481). Linn and Petersen noted that "these strategies [used in spatial visualization] are more characteristic of general ability than of spatial ability" (p. 1491), and are analytic strategies.

Gender Differences

Many researchers have noted gender differences in spatial ability, with males usually outscoring females, especially on mental rotation and spatial perception tasks (Linn & Petersen, 1985; Kimura, 1999; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Halpern & LaMay, 2000).= Studies by Levine, Huttenlocher, Taylor, and Langrock (1999) suggest= ed that males outperform females on several types of spatial ability from age = four and one half. Linn and Peters= en noted that there is often no statistical difference on spatial visualization tasks between females and males.

Other researchers have found relationships between scores on some types of spatial ability and psychological gender, a self-described continuum of sex-typed r= ole expectations ranging from extremely masculine to extremely feminine Signore= lla & Jamison, 1986; Brosnan, 1998; Firth & Brosnan, 2000).

Atten= tion Given to Spatial Ability in Traditional Education

Matth= ewson (1999) and McCormack and Mason (2000) note that spatial ability has been undervalued or ignored in traditional education. This may be due, in part, to the association of spatial ability and development of spatial ability tests with manual vocations during America’s industrial age. Students who = have difficulty with linguistic tasks receive much encouragement and attention, especially in early grades. M= ost of these children are male (Hyde and Linn, 1988). Those who have difficulty with spa= tial tasks, mostly girls, receive no specific help. Geary (1996) reports that lack of assistance may result in these students dropping out of spatially-related studies, such as math and science, when those courses are no longer require= d of students or lose interest during the upper grades or in middle school.=

Impro= vement of spatial ability

Evide= nce exists that spatial ability can be improved (Lord, 1985, 1987; Bezzi, 1991; Kyllonen, Lohman, & Snow, 1984; Piburn, Reynolds, Leedy, McAuliffe, Bir= k, & Johnson, 2002). Some researchers, however, have found more difficulty in improving scores of men= tal rotation than scores of other types of spatial ability (Piburn et al., 2002; Zavotka, 1987).

University Non-science Majors

Public understanding of Earth science systems and the ability of citizens to think critically about them are necessary. University non-science majors often become public leaders and educat= ors, and may therefore greatly influence public policy about Earth resource issues. Non-majors, however, = have been shown to lag behind science majors in science content understanding (Nordvik & Amponsah, 1998), spatial ability (Lord, 1987), cognitive lev= el (Maloney, 1981) and study habits (Ryan, 1989). It is important for our nation's f= uture that these students have an understanding of important Earth science concep= ts upon which they can base knowledge of ongoing problems and situations.=

Studies Relating Earth Science Conceptual Ability to Spatial Ability

Altho= ugh complex bodies of literature exist concerning both Earth science misconcept= ions and spatial abilities, relatively few researchers (Kali and Orion, 1996; Pi= burn et al., 2002) have considered the relationship between specific spatial abilities and Earth science conceptual understanding. No research has been found that re= lates specific Earth science misconceptions to specific spatial abilities. Several researchers (Mathewson, 19= 99; McCormack & Mason, 2001) reported that spatial ability has been overloo= ked in traditional education.

In my previous research, significant positive relationships at a moderate level w= ere found between scores on each of three types of spatial ability and Earth sc= ience conceptual understanding scores of university non-science majors (Black, 20= 03; 2004; 2005). The Earth Science Concepts (ESC) test was developed and field tested for two years to test student misconceptions and broader conceptual difficulties. Students who sc= ored higher on any of the tests of spatial ability also tended to score higher on the overall ESC test.

Justification and Purp= ose of the Study

Becau= se understanding of Earth systems is vital today, it is important that not only future scientists, but non-science majors to understand Earth science concepts. Many students, howe= ver, exhibit conceptual problems. = Many non-science majors become policy makers and educators. Spatial ability is linked to achie= vement in science, and many conceptual problems in Earth science appear to have a spatial component.

The p= urpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between scores on the thr= ee types of spatial ability tests and performance on individual test items, an= d to determine the various Earth science concepts associated with those individu= al items. Do students who score = higher on a specific type of spatial ability tend to have greater understanding of specific Earth science subject matter, such as the cause of seasons or topographic maps? This study = is the first of many planned studies of these relationships; this preliminary study will produce the first data in a much larger study.

There= fore, if a relationship exists between Earth science conceptual understanding and spatial ability, curricula may hopefully be developed to facilitate both spatial abilities necessary for Earth science conceptual understanding and understanding of spatially-related Earth science concepts that are associat= ed with misconceptions and other broader conceptual problems.

Hypotheses<= /span>

Becau= se PVOR scores had earlier been found to be the best predictor of total ESC scores, of the variables studied, PVOR scores were hypothesized to be the t= ype of spatial ability scores that are most highly correlated with individual E= SC item scores. Because GEFT sco= res had been found to be correlated at a lower level of significance than the o= ther two types of spatial ability test scores to total ESC scores, GEFT scores w= ere hypothesized to be the type of spatial ability scores least correlated with individual ESC item scores. <= o:p>

Methods

&nb= sp;

Tests= were administered to 118 non-science majors who were enrolled in six undergradua= te science classes at a regional Midwestern university. Participants also completed a demographic survey and were administered the BEM Inventory (Bem, 1974), whi= ch determined psychological gender. Data was used from 97 students who were administered all five tests. Participants included = 35 males and 30 elementary-middle school preservice teachers.

Instruments

Spatial Ability Tests

Selec= tion of spatial ability tests was based on the three-category spatial classifica= tion of Linn and Petersen (1985). = The Purdue Visualization of Rotations test (PVOR) (Guay, 1977) was used to test mental rotation. The Differen= tial Aptitude Test - Space Relations (DAT) (Bennett, Seashore, & Wesman, 199= 1) test was chosen to test spatial visualization, and the Group Embedded Figur= es Test (GEFT) (Witkin, Oltman, Kaskin, & Karp, 1971) was administered to = test spatial perception. Criteria = for selection of spatial ability tests included published validity and reliabil= ity data, citations in the science education literature, suitability for group administration, availability, and measurement of spatial tasks that appeared related to possible misconceptions or conceptual problems.

Test = of Earth Science Conceptual Understanding

The 2= 0 item multiple choice Earth Science Concepts (ESC) test (Black, 2005) was develop= ed when no suitable previously constructed tests were located. The ESC was based on the misconception and conceptual difficulties in the literature, and was field-tested 15 times with 331 students.&n= bsp; Criterion validity was 0.595 and K-R reliability was 0.742. .

Each = item offered five possible responses. Response (e), "I don't know", was intended to discourage guessing. The test included a= ll four areas of Earth science, but to different extents; fewer items involved oceanography than the other three areas of Earth science. Eight items inclu= ded diagrams and twelve did not. =

Values Associated with Item Response Choices

= To obtain a numerical value for use in correlation statistics, each possible response choice on all ESC items was assigned a number value indicating its approximation to the scientific explanation or thought processes used by scientists. The scientifically correct explanations were assigned values of 5. "I don't know" responses= were assigned values of 0, as no thought was indicated. If one part of a distracter respon= se indicated the scientific explanation, but the remainder of the explanation = did not, the response was assigned a value of 2. If only ideas associated with misconceptions were evident, a value of 1 was assigned. In o= nly one case was a value of 3 assigned; this was made to reflect the distinction made by Kali and Orion (1996) between penetrative and non-penetrative spati= al thinking on geologic block diagrams. Each item response by each participant was assigned its corresponding value. Pearson correlations w= ere conducted for each of the 20 ESC items between values for each possible item response and each of the spatial ability test scores.

Resul= ts

Resul= ts indicated that one or more spatial ability test scores were significantly correlated to scores on eight of twenty ESC items, or 40% of ESC items. Persons who exhibited a lack of misconceptions or conceptual difficulties by choosing the scientifically accepted response on those items also tended to score well on specific spat= ial ability tests. Of 13 to= tal significant correlations, four were at the .01 level and 9 at the .05 level.

Of the significant correlations between spatial ability scores and individual item responses, PVOR scores were responsible for 6 of 13 correlations. They were responsible for three of= the four .01 correlations and six total correlations, and correlations with 30% of a= ll ESC items. Three of those six= PVOR correlations were moderate, and three were weak.

Of fi= ve significant correlations with DAT scores, one item was moderately correlate= d at the .01 level and four were weakly correlated at the .05 level. Only two it= ems were weakly correlated at the .05 level to GEFT scores.

The o= ne topic that was significantly correlated to all three spatial abilities was = the most complex of two geologic block diagram items. In this item, a potential geologic= block diagram was depicted within its stratigraphic layers. Two astronomical concepts (the astronomical event that occurs within one month and cause of seasons, a top= ic also important in meteorology) and one item concerning the evaporation of w= ater were correlated with both PVOR and DAT scores. Topics that were correlated with o= ne type of spatial ability were motion of molecules in ice, topographic map in= terpretation, relative astronomical distances, and a simple geologic block diagram. =

Sever= al demographic characteristics of subjects were also significantly related to individual ESC item responses. Three items, none of which were significantly related to spatial abilities, were related to number of university Earth science courses and o= ne to number of high school Earth science courses. Four individual items were signifi= cantly related to gender, even though gender was not significantly related to any = of the spatial ability scores or ESC scores as a whole in the earlier study. One item was related to age, one to psychological gender, and one to university grade level. No items were significantly relate= d to major (elementary/middle education major compared to other non-science majors. Both ESC items with a= nd without diagrams were correlated to scores on spatial ability tests; no pat= tern was apparent.

Discussion<= /span>

Resul= ts are consistent with the hypotheses that specific Earth science concepts, includ= ing those associated with common misconceptions and conceptual difficulties, ma= y be related to specific types of spatial ability. They are also consistent with earl= ier results concerning the relationship of ESC scores and spatial ability score= s, in which PVOR scores most highly correlated with total ESC scores, and GEFT scores correlated to a lesser degree. They are also consistent with the hypothesis that mental rotation is most associated with a number of Earth science misconceptions and conceptual difficulties, and spatial perception least related.

The s= trongest relationships were found with the PVOR, followed by the DAT, as predicted.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Both of these tests have aspects of viewing objects from different vantage points. The GEFT, however, is two dimensio= nal only, and does not involve different vantage points, 2D-3D transformations,= or motion.

The m= ore complex geologic diagram does involve spatial tasks measured by all three spatial ability tests. Disemb= edding is needed in order to separate the block from surrounding rock layers (GEFT= ). Visualization of interfaces betwee= n the two figures is necessary (DAT). This may be a penetrative ability (Kali & Orion, 1996). Two of the distracters exhibited no penetrative ability. To chose between the other two response choices, the subject must realize that in or= der to produce one choice, the block must be tilted, or rotated (PVOR).

It was unexpected that only one weak correlation was found between understanding of the cause of moon phases and PVOR score.&n= bsp; Understanding of moon phases appears to have a strong moving spatial component and view of objects from differing vantage points. Similarly, the correlation at the = .01 level between the astronomical event that occurs once a month and both the = DAT and PVOR was not anticipated. That item is one of the lowest difficulty items, and might be even memorized. Perhaps subjects who visualize cel= estial bodies and revolution, rather than memorizing words, tend to be those who s= core higher on the DAT and PVOR. I= t was also unexpected that a stronger relationship was not found between the air photo interpretation question, which appears to involve disembedding. Although the relationship with the= GEFT was stronger than that with the other two types of spatial ability, the correlation was not significant.

Implications for the Classroom

In re= gard to science topics that have spatial components, teachers should provide multiple models in two and three dimensions. They should focus on the spatial a= spects of those topics, not on conveying only verbal information. Teachers should also provide hands= -on, three-dimensional inquiry activities that allow students to use as many sen= ses as possible in exploring the spatial aspects of those topics. Teachers should also carefully exp= lain models that are functional, but not to scale, and elicit feedback concerning understanding of models.

Curri= culum developers should develop and make available curricula and interventions th= at focus on spatial aspects of concepts, especially topics that are known to be associated with misconceptions and conceptual difficulties. Teachers should look for and imple= ment curricula and interventions that focus on spatial aspects of concepts.=

Altho= ugh certainly many factors influence learning of Earth science concepts, the significant contribution of spatial ability should not be overlooked or left entirely to chance. This preliminary study suggests that perhaps individual concept understanding might be facilitated by the development of spatially-oriented curricula or activities that address specific misconcept= ions or conceptual difficulties. <= o:p>

References<= /span>

&nb= sp;

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2006). Experts at AAAS<= /o:p>

&= nbsp; Forum Urge U.S. to Renew Its Commitment to S&T Innovation. On line.

&= nbsp; http://www.aaas.org/news/r= eleases/2006/0502innov.shtml. Accessed November

&= nbsp; 20, 2006.

Black, A. A. (2003). Spatial abilities, earth science conceptual understanding, and &= nbsp; psychological gender of university non-science majors.&n= bsp; (Unpublished Doctoral

= dissertation, University of Missouri, 2003).=

Black, A.A. (2004, April). Relationship of earth science misconceptions and conceptual understanding with three types of spatial abilities in university non-science majors. Proceedings of the National Association for Research in Science &= nbsp; Teaching, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Black= , A.A. (2005. Spatial ability and ea= rth science conceptual understanding. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 402-414.

Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgeny. Journal of Consulting   &= nbsp;      and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Bennett, G.K., Seashore, H.G., & Wesman, A.G. (1991). Differential Aptitude Tests for      Personnel and Car= eer Assessment: Space Relations Technical Manual. San = ;         Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Bezzi, A. (1991). A Macintosh program for improving three-dimensional thinking. <= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>      Journal of Geological Education, 39, 284-288.

Brosnan, M. (1998). The implications for academic atta= inment of perceived gender-    = ; appropriateness upon spatial task performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 203-215.

Firth, R., & Brosnan, M. (2000). The implications for academic attainmnet of perceived &nbs= p;        gender-appropriateness upon spatial task performance: A corrigendum. British            Jo= urnal of Educational Psychology, 70, 273-274.

Geary, D.C. (1996). Sexual selection and sex differences in mathematical abilities.

    &= nbsp;       Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 229-284.

Guay, R.B. (1977). Purdue spatial visualization test: Rotations. West Lafayette, IN:        &= nbsp; Purdue Research Foundation.

Halpern, D.F., & LaMay, M.L. (2000). The smarter sex: A critical review of sex         differences in intelligence.   Educational Psychology Review, 12, 229-246.

Hawkins, B. (2000). Young children's interpretations of aerial views as it relates to their &= nbsp;         ability to understand the Earth as spherical. Paper presented at the meeting of &n= bsp; Association for the Education of Science Teachers Annual Meeting, Akron, OH.

Hyde, J.S., & Linn, M.C. (1988). Gender differences: verbal ability= , A meta-analysis.

    &= nbsp;       Psychological Bulletin, 4(1), 53-6= 9.

Kali, Y., & Orion, N. (1996). Spatial abilities of high-school students in the perception &nbs= p;           of geologic structures. Journal of Research in Science Teachin= g, 33(4), 369-391.

Kimura, D. (1999). Sex and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kyllonen, P.D., Lohman, D.F., &= amp; Snow, R.E. (1984). Effects of aptitudes, strategy     training, and task face= ts on spatial task performance. Journal of Educational      Psychology, 7= 6, 130-143.

Levine, S.C.<= /st1:place>, Huttenlocher, J., Taylor, A., & Langrock, A. (1999). Early sex differences          = in spatial skill. Developmental Psychology, 35, 940-949.

Linn, M. & Petersen, A.C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of = sex differences in     &nbs= p;    spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479-1498.<= o:p>

Lord, T. R. (1985). Enhancing the visuo-spatial aptitu= de of students. Journal of     =     Research in Science Teaching, 227, 395-405.

Lord, T. R. (1987). A look at spatial abilities in undergraduate women science majors.       =     Journal of Research in Science Teachin= g, 24, 757-767.

Lord, T. R. & Rupert, J. L. (1995). Visual-spatial aptitu= de in elementary education    &nbs= p; majors in science and math tracks. Journal of Elementary Science Educatio= n, 7,        &= nbsp;    47-58.

Maccoby, E.E., & Jacklin, C= .N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford,        = CA.&n= bsp; Stanford University Press.

Maloney, D.P. (1981). Comparative reasoning abilities of college students. American            Jour= nal of Physics, 49, 784-786.

Mathewson, J. H. (1999). Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect= of science overlooked by    &nb= sp;        educators. Science Education, 83, 33-54.

McCormack, A.J., & Mason, C.L. (2001). Visual/Spatial Thinking: A forgotten         fundamental for school science programs. Paper prese= nted at the meeting of the    &nb= sp;      Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Akron, OH.

Nordvik, H., & Amponsah, B. (1998). Gender differences in spatial abil= ities and spatial      &= nbsp;    activity among university students in an egalitarian educational system. Sex        &= nbsp; Roles, 38, 1998.

National Ce= nter on Education and the Economy.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> (2006). Tough Choices of Tough

            = Times: The Report of the New Commission o= n the Skills of the American

            = Workforce. Executive Summary. Washington, = DC.&n= bsp; On-line www.ncee.org.

    &= nbsp;       Accessed 12/29/06.

Pallrand, G.J., & Seeber, F. (1984). Spatial ability and achievement in introductory    physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 507-516.

Petrill, S. A., & Wilkerson, B. (2000). Intelligence and achievement: A behavioral      genetic perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 185-199.

Philips, W.C. (1991). Earth science misconceptions. The Science Teacher, 58, 21-23.

Piburn, M.D., Reynolds, S.J., Leedy, D.E., McAuliffe, C.M., Birk, J.P., Johnson, J.K. (2002, April). The hidden Earth: Visualization of geologic features and the         &= nbsp; subsurface geometry. Paper presented at = the annual meeting of the National   =           Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Ryan, J. (1989). Study skills for the sciences: A b= ridge over troubled waters. Journal of        College Science Teaching, 373-377.

Schoon, J. K. (1995). The origin and extent of alternati= ve conceptions in the Earth and   &n= bsp;       space sciences: A survey of pre-service elementary teachers. Journal of     Elementary Sci= ence Education, 7, 27-46.

Signorella, M.L., & Jamison= , W. (1978). Sex differences in the correlations among field    =         dependence, spatial ability, sex role orientation, and performance of Piaget's         &= nbsp; water-level task. Developmental Psychology, 14, 689-690.

Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P.K., Kas= kin, E., & Karp, S.A. (1971). A Manual for the      Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Zavotka, S. (1987). Three-dimensional computer animated graphics: A tool for spatial

instruction. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 35, 133-144.