Journal of Geography

ISSN: 0022-1341 (Print) 1752-6868 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjog20

Spatial Thinking Assists Geographic Thinking:

Evidence from a Study Exploring the Effects of
Geospatial Technology

Sandra Metoyer & Robert Bednarz

To cite this article: Sandra Metoyer & Robert Bednarz (2017) Spatial Thinking Assists Geographic
Thinking: Evidence from a Study Exploring the Effects of Geospatial Technology, Journal of
Geography, 116:1, 20-33, DOI: 10.1080/00221341.2016.1175495

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2016.1175495

Published online: 19 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1409

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 18 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjog20
 Spatial Thinking Assists Geographic Thinking: Evidence from a Study
Exploring the Effects of Geospatial Technology
ABSTRACT
This article provides a description and
discussion of an exploratory research
study that examined the effects of using
geospatial technology (GST) on high
school students’ spatial skills and spa-
tial-relations content knowledge. It
presents results that support the use of
GST to teach spatially dependent con-
tent. It also provides indication of an
important link between spatial thinking
and geographic thinking. The article
concludes with a discussion of how
these results inform instructional strate-
gies for the teaching of geography.
Key Words: geography education, spatial
thinking, geographic thinking
geospatial technology
Sandra Metoyer is grants writer in the
Office of Development at Galveston College,
Galveston, Texas, USA. Her recent work has
focused on developing sponsored program
and scholarship opportunities for historically
underrepresented students in higher educa-
tion through public and private
partnerships.
Robert Bednarz is professor of geography at
Texas A&M University, College Station,
Texas, USA. His recent research has focused
on spatial thinking, the impact of using geo-
spatial technologies on spatial-thinking, and
the assessment of spatial-thinking skills.
Journal of Geography 116: 20–33
Ó 2017 National Council for Geographic Education
Sandra Metoyer and Robert Bednarz
INTRODUCTION
Research in geography education supports the belief that spatial thinking is
crucial to academic and career success in geography and other spatially depen-
dent sciences (Pallrand and Seeber 1984; Kali and Orion 1996; Hsi, Linn, and
Bell 1997) and that spatial thinking is malleable; it can be improved through
education and training (Terlecki 2004; Shin 2007; Wright et al. 2008; Lee and Bed-
narz 2009). Research also suggests that tools such as geospatial technologies
(GST), for example virtual globes and geographic information systems (GIS),
support and facilitate the acquisition of spatial thinking (Committee on Support
for Thinking Spatially, National Research Council 2006). Going a step further,
the current study suggests a correlation between thinking spatially and
thinking geographically. Spatial thinking is a combination of cognitive skills
comprised of knowing concepts of space, using tools of representation, and
applying processes of reasoning. Geographic thinking extrapolates beyond
spatial thinking to encompass the recognition and elaboration of the rela-
tions among spatial concepts, the advanced associations derived from these
concepts, and the formal linking of the associations into theories and
generalizations.
The purpose of this exploratory study is to examine the influence of GST as an
instructional tool on the development of spatial skills and the understanding of
a spatially dependent geography topic, central place theory, within an authentic
classroom context. A quasi-experimental design was used to compare three
groups: an intervention group using GST, a comparison group using traditional
paper-and-pencil maps, and a control group. Groups’ spatial skills, spatial atti-
tudes, and content knowledge were assessed.
This article discusses the impact of instruction with GST on spatial skills
and spatial-relations content knowledge. In addition, the influence of having
a high starting level of spatial skill on gains in spatial-relations content
knowledge is compared to low or average skill groups. Findings suggest a
correlation between thinking spatially and thinking geographically. Does
instruction with geospatial technologies promote the acquisition of spatially
dependent content? Can instruction utilizing GST facilitate the development
of spatial and geographic thinking? These questions are explored and the
article concludes with a discussion of implications and recommendations for
geography education.
BACKGROUND
Spatial Thinking
Although the characterization of spatial thinking is still debated, researchers
agree that spatial thinking is a distinct cognitive ability separate from general
intelligence (Thorndike 1921; Eliot 1987; Brosnan 1998; Kyllonen and Gluck
2003). The body of knowledge regarding when and how spatial thinking devel-
ops is growing, but no model explaining its development is widely accepted.
For example, researchers have repeatedly studied the impact of nature versus
nurture in an effort to understand the roles innate ability and acquired skills
play in the development of spatial thinking without reaching consensus.
Spatial thinking, as defined by the National Research Council’s Committee on
Support for Thinking Spatially, is a constructive combination of cognitive skills
20

comprised of knowing concepts of space, using tools of
representation, and applying processes of reasoning
(Committee on Support for Thinking Spatially, National
Research Council 2006, 12). Spatial thinking allows people
to use space to model the world (real and theoretical) to
structure problems, find answers, and express and com-
municate solutions. The inclusion of concepts of space
makes spatial thinking unique from other types of cogni-
tion (Committee on Support for Thinking Spatially,
National Research Council 2006).
Concepts of space are declarative forms of knowledge
that are the building blocks for spatial thinking such as
location, dimensionality, continuity, pattern, spatial asso-
ciation, network, and proximity (Lloyd, Patton and Cam-
mack 1996; Golledge 2002; Gersmehl and Gersmehl 2007;
Janelle and Goodchild 2009).
Using tools of representation is necessary for compe-
tency in spatial thinking. Representations, such as maps,
graphs, sketches, diagrams, flow charts, images, and mod-
els, are used in a variety of modes (mental images, visual
media, tactile, auditory, and kinesthetic) to identify,
describe, explain, and communicate information about
objects and their associated spatial relationships (Commit-
tee on Support for Thinking Spatially, National Research
Council 2006).
Spatial thinking often necessitates complex reasoning
(Jo and Bednarz 2009). Reasoning is the capacity of indi-
viduals to think, to make sense of the world, and to
understand. Processes of reasoning are crucial for learn-
ing as individuals obtain, change, or justify practices,
institutions, and beliefs (Kompridis 2000). Processes of
reasoning include low levels of thinking, such as recog-
nizing, defining, and listing, as well as higher levels of
thinking, such as evaluating, synthesizing, and generaliz-
ing (Jo and Bednarz 2009). To reiterate, spatial thinking is
defined as a combination of these three components: spa-
tial concepts, tools of representation, and processes of
reasoning.
Spatial thinking is important for academic success in
geography and other sciences, yet effective methods for
explicitly teaching spatial thinking do not exist. Evidence
of transfer from training in spatial skills to changes in the
ability to understand and solve discipline-specific spatial
problems is scarce (for an exception see Talley 1973).
Many have proposed using GIS to improve spatial skills
and spatial thinking (Committee on Support for Thinking
Spatially, National Research Council 2006). More specifi-
cally, researchers have argued that GIS helps students
develop spatial abilities, solve spatial problems, reason
spatially, and improve map-reading skills (Albert and
Golledge 1999; Forer and Unwin 1999; Hall-Wallace and
McAuliffe 2002; Kerski 2003) although little evidence
exists to support these arguments (for an exception see
Lee and Bednarz 2009).
Although the understanding of some aspects of spatial
thinking is incomplete and not confirmed, research sup-
ports the following. High spatial thinking is positively
Spatial Thinking Assists Geographic Thinking
correlated to success in geography and other sciences
(Pallrand and Seeber 1984; Kali and Orion 1996; Hsi, Linn,
and Bell 1997). Spatial thinking is an essential set of skills
necessary for the development and application of GIS
(Sanchez and Wiley 2010). Spatial thinking can be
improved with training and/or direct instruction (Baen-
ninger and Newcombe 1989). Various human cognitive
factors and life events contribute to the development of
spatial thinking (e.g., spatial vocabulary, play experiences,
memory capacity) (Levine et al. 2005; Dasen and Mishra
2010). And, sex differences (often minimized with training
or instruction) exist for some types of spatial thinking and
under certain conditions (Ward, Newcombe, and Overton
1986; Halpern 2000).
Little consensus exists regarding the effect of spatial-
thinking training on the ability to learn, understand, and
apply discipline-specific spatial concepts nor the effect of
using GST, as an instructional tool, on spatial thinking or
on discipline-specific content learning. Some strategies
and methods for teaching and learning spatial thinking
have been developed, but few studies have examined the
impact of the instructional strategies on spatial thinking
and discipline-specific content knowledge (for an excep-
tion, again see Lee and Bednarz 2009).
Geographic Thinking
Geographic knowledge is the declarative knowledge of
space and the intellectual knowledge about space. It is a
product of geographic thinking and processes of reason-
ing (Golledge 2002). Geographic thinking requires intellec-
tual knowledge about space. Knowledge about space
consists of the recognition and elaboration of the rela-
tions among spatial concepts, the advanced associations
derived from these concepts, and the formal linking of
the associations into theories and generalizations. Geo-
graphic thinking, and therefore intellectual knowledge
about space, “extrapolates far beyond simple sensory
or observational information” (Golledge 2002, 1). In
geography this extrapolation is captured in various
tools of representation such as maps and GIS. These
representations can then be analyzed and interpreted
in order to understand spatial patterns and spatial
relations.
It would seem logical that geographic thinking requires
spatial thinking. Spatial thinking, on the other hand, does
not necessitate geographic thinking. Geographic thinking
is the application of spatial thinking to address complex
geographic concepts or problems. As an example, deter-
mining an ideal and profitable location for a new store
requires geographic thinking. Competent geographic
thinking in this example is dependent upon spatial-think-
ing processes such as recognizing patterns and making
spatial associations. Recognizing patterns such as density
or hexagons (market areas) among existing stores requires
spatial thinking. It does not require geographic thinking.
Even though evidence exists to support the correlation
between high spatial-thinking ability and success in
21
Sandra Metoyer and Robert Bednarz
geography and other spatially dependent sciences, little
evidence exists to support the reverse relationship. Both of
these relationships were explored in this study by assess-
ing students’ spatial-thinking skills prior to the introduc-
tion of a novel spatially dependent concept and then,
following instruction, comparing changes in their spatial-
relations content knowledge.
METHOD
A two-day instructional unit focused on central place
theory was developed as an intervention in order to
understand the impact GST has on students’ spatial
thinking and on their understanding of a geographic
concept. The primary purpose of the intervention was
to provide students with (1) instruction on central place
theory explicitly focusing on spatial-thinking strategies
and (2) intentional practice with spatial thinking
through GST. Three primary research questions defined
the design for the study. First, what is the effect of
using GST as an instructional tool on students’ spatial-
thinking skills? Second, what is the effect of using GST
as an instructional tool on students’ content knowledge
of a spatially dependent concept? And third, what is
the relationship between spatial thinking and geo-
graphic thinking?
Three assessments were used to examine students’ spa-
tial thinking and spatial relations content knowledge: a
spatial-visualization skills test, a spatial-orientation skills
test, and a spatial-relations content knowledge test. Class-
room observations by two third-party observers and by
the researcher informed a qualitative description of the
instructional unit and intervention. Statistical methods
were used to compare scores among different participant
groups and to explore potential relationships.
Setting and Participants
The study was set in a Texas urban public high school.
Permissions to conduct the research were secured from an
institutional review board and from the school district
following a research application process and committee
review. The classes recruited for the study were five
tenth grade world geography honor classes. Honor
classes were intentionally utilized in an effort to con-
trol, to some extent, for differences in motivation and
academic success. Motivation is a crucial factor in aca-
demic success. Educators typically encounter two
types; motivation arising from a conditioned expecta-
tion of academic success and intrinsic motivation aris-
ing from a personal interest in the subject or activity
(Mills 1991). Equivalent motivation of the first type and
effective study habits were assumed among the partici-
pants because all were honor students with good aca-
demic standing.
Honor classes are open the first semester to all stu-
dents regardless of grade point average or test scores.
However, if a student is unsuccessful in the honor
class during the first semester, that individual is
22
automatically transferred to a regular geography class
for the second semester. This study occurred late in the
second semester. Students still enrolled in an honor
class at that time were assumed to be successful in the
course, thus indicating both motivation and academic
ability. Student participation within these classes was
solicited and acknowledged with a five-dollar gift certif-
icate to a local vendor. Three of the five honor classes
were taught by one teacher, and two classes by a second
teacher. Both teachers had several years of experience
teaching honor-level geography and were recognized as
excellent teachers by the school district.
Each class started with approximately twenty-three stu-
dents with relatively equal numbers of males and females.
One class (n D 20 after attrition) was reserved as a control
class in which no instruction on spatial-thinking strategies
or content related to central place theory was presented.
Figure 1 illustrates the sampling design in which the
remaining students (n D 82 after attrition) were divided
into the four treatment classes by sex then randomly
assigned to either the intervention group (using digital
maps and GST) or the comparison group (nondigital,
paper-and-pencil maps). Stratified random sampling
ensured equal gender representation by class period in
the two groups. As a result of attrition caused by absences
during portions of the activity or during the posttesting,
102 high school students participated in the full study:
48 females and 54 males.
Instruments
Pre- and postassessments were obtained from partici-
pating students for spatial-visualization skills, spatial-
orientation skills, and spatial-relations content knowl-
edge. Practice items were administered prior to the
timed portion of each spatial-skill test (visualization
and orientation) to prevent any misunderstanding or
confusion about the instructions or the task. Nineteen
days following the instructional activity and twenty-
five days after the pretests, posttests were administered
for spatial-visualization skills, spatial-orientation skills,
and spatial-relations content knowledge (Table 1). The
time gap between pretests and posttests was inten-
tionally long in an attempt to diminish test-retest
effects.
Spatial Visualization
Mental rotation from an allocentric viewpoint is an
example of spatial visualization (Golledge and Stimson
1997; Hegarty and Waller 2004; Zacks and Tversky
2005). It requires the mental manipulation of an object
or array of objects with no imagined change to the
individual’s viewpoint or orientation. Mental rotation
of both two-dimensional and three-dimensional objects
is a standard test for spatial visualization that has been
used in many studies measuring spatial skills (Voyer,
Voyer, and Bryden 1995; Burton 2003; Quaiser-Pohl
2003).
 Spatial Thinking Assists Geographic Thinking

along one axis but not flipped, it

would be marked S for same. If
the object was flipped creating a
mirror image of the example
item, it would be marked D for
different (Fig. 2). Twenty-four
items of this type appeared on the
pre- and posttests for two-dimen-
sional visualization.
Three-dimensional test items
selected to assess spatial-visuali-
zation skills, cubes marked with
patterns of either round dots in
a fashion similar to dice or with
six unique geometric shapes,
were modified from Ekstrom,
French, and Harmon (1976). The
participant was required to
compare an example cube to
three other cubes that were the
exact same shape and size but
had been rotated sequentially
one face at a time. The task was
to number the three comparison
items in the correct order that
the cube was rotated. Three of
six faces were visible on each
cube. The cube could turn or
rotate only one face at a time,
but it could be rotated in any
direction or along any axis
(Fig. 3). Both the pretest and
posttest were comprised of
fourteen items of this type;
eight items with dots on the
cube faces and six items with
unique geometric shapes.
Participants were given four
minutes to complete the 2-D and
3-D visualization tests, two
minutes for each. Before each
test, the researcher explained the
solution for one item to ensure
Figure 1. Sampling design. Four world regional geography honor-level classes that participants knew what was
were split into an intervention group (n D 41) and a comparison group (n D 41). expected and to answer any
One world regional geography honor-level class was reserved as a control group questions about the test prior to
(n D 20). the start. Participants were
instructed to complete as many
items as possible (maximum of
Two-dimensional items selected for this study, simple twenty-four items for 2-D and fourteen items for 3-D)
geometric shapes, were modified from Ekstrom, French, with the greatest degree of accuracy within the two-min-
and Harmon (1976). The exercise required the participants ute time limit.
to compare an example item to four other items that were The 2-D and 3-D spatial-visualization tests were
the same shape and size but had been rotated (trans- given as a pre- and posttest. The pre- and posttests
formed on one axis) or rotated and flipped (transformed contained the same number and type of items. The
on two axes). The task required the students to distinguish sequence of items and sequence of answer choices for
similar from different shapes. If the object was rotated posttest differed from the pretest. Accuracy, the

23
Sandra Metoyer and Robert Bednarz

percentage of attempted items cor-

rectly answered, determined partic- Table 1. List of instruments.
ipants’ performance on the spatial-
visualization skills tests.
Instrument Name Placement Source Type of Data
Spatial Orientation Spatial Visualization Pre and Post Adapted from Ekstrom, Quantitative
Spatial orientation is “the ability to Skills: Mental French, and Harmon (1976) Timed (2 min.)
imagine how configurations of ele- Rotation Same/Different
ments would appear from different Spatial Orientation Pre and Post Adapted from Hegarty Quantitative
perspectives” (Golledge and Stimson Skills: Object- and Waller (2004) Timed (2 min.)
1997, 158). It requires spatial reorien- Perspective Test Angular measure
tation with respect to one’s own Spatial Relations Pre and Post Developed for Quantitative
body, that is, mental movement of Content Test this study Not timed
one’s self. Multiple choice
Assessing spatial-orientation skill
using paper-and-pencil items is dif-
ficult because the representation of a large three-dimen- correct measured angle and the angle drawn by the partici-
sional area is illustrated in a small two-dimensional pant. These differences were converted to a normalized
space. Spatial orientation is often measured using an mean-percent-accuracy score.
authentic performance such as pointing or walking to
indicate a bearing or direction. Hegarty and Waller Spatial-Relations Content Knowledge
(2004) developed a paper-and-pencil test, the Object Spatial relations is a spatial ability requiring higher-
Perspective Test, to assess orientation as an egocentric level processes of reasoning involving spatial concepts
transformation skill measuring an individual’s reorien- and the possibility of multiple-solution strategies. Spatial-
tation ability. Analysis demonstrates this task is inde- relations thinking requires spatial visualization, spatial
pendent from mental rotation tasks, indicating it is a orientation, or both as foundational spatial-thinking skills.
separate and measurable spatial skill (Hegarty and Spatial-relations thinking necessitates higher-level pro-
Waller 2004). The Object Perspective Test was utilized cesses of reasoning to understand relationships and/or pat-
in this study to measure orientation skills of the terns among different spatially arranged objects. Change in
participants. students’ spatial-relations content knowledge was used as
Both the pre- and post- spatial-orientation tests con- a proxy for geographic thinking.
sisted of twenty items. Pre- and posttests were comprised Spatial relations include a broad and diverse set of
of the same items, but they were presented in a different higher-level, spatial-thinking skills. The test items devel-
order. Participants were required to imagine standing at oped for the spatial-relations content test were based on
one feature on the map and imagine facing a second fea- (1) spatial operations described in Learning to Think Spa-
ture. They then pointed to a third feature by drawing a line tially: GIS as a Support System in the K–12 Curriculum
to indicate the angle of difference
between the feature they were fac-
ing and the feature they were point-
ing to (Fig. 4).
Participants were given two
minutes to complete the spatial-
orientation test. Before the test,
the researcher worked through
an example to ensure the partici-
pants knew what was expected
and to answer any questions.
Participants were instructed to
complete as many items as possi-
ble with the greatest degree of
accuracy within the two-minute
time limit.
Performance on the spatial-orien-
tation tests was measured using an
accuracy scale. Accuracy was calcu-
lated by first determining the Figure 2. Two-dimensional visualization test item example.
degrees of difference between the

24
 Spatial Thinking Assists Geographic Thinking

representation, and higher-level pro-

cesses of reasoning. The content-
dependent category, however, is
unlikely to be answered correctly
without some understanding of the
generalizations and assumptions of
central place theory. Change in
students’ spatial-relations content
knowledge was used as a proxy for
geographic thinking. Figure 5 pro-
vides an example of a content-inde-
pendent and a content-dependent
question.

Intervention
A quasi-experimental interven-
tion design was conducted in a field
setting with the intent of producing
an instructional impact. A sequen-
tial explanatory strategy was uti-
lized for the research design with
priority on quantitative data col-
lected using a repeated measures
format. The effect of the instruc-
tional unit was explored by compar-
ing pre- and posttests for three
Figure 3. Three-dimensional visualization test item examples. groups: the intervention group, the
comparison group, and a control
group.
All three groups completed pre/
posttests of spatial-visualization
(Committee on Support for Thinking Spatially, National skills, spatial-orientation skills, and spatial-relations con-
Research Council 2006, 68); (2) examples of spatial-relation tent knowledge tests. One class acting as the control group
abilities listed by Golledge and Stimson (1997, 158); (3) received normally scheduled instruction as determined by
level of spatial thinking assigned using a taxonomy of spa- their classroom teacher. The remaining four divided clas-
tial thinking (Jo and Bednarz 2009); and (4) content rele- ses participated in a guided exploratory instructional unit
vant to central place theory. The test was created to on central place theory using either virtual globe and digi-
measure changes in students’ understanding of central tal maps or traditional paper-and-pencil maps. Both the
place theory from a spatial-relations-skill perspective. In intervention and comparison groups received explicit
other words, to answer questions correctly required spa- instruction during the activity for using visualization
tial skill and content knowledge. Drawing on examples strategies to enhance their use of the respective tools.
from Lee’s (2005) spatial-relations instrument and Jo and On day 1, the intervention and comparison group
Bednarz’s (2009) taxonomy for evaluating questions for received an introduction to central place theory using a
spatial thinking, questions were developed that integrated formatted structure of guided inquiry and direct
concepts of space, tools of representation, and higher-level instruction. The students explored assumptions of cen-
processes of reasoning to assess students’ understanding tral place theory using comparative examples and con-
of central place theory. sidered conditions that could cause variations to the
Questions were categorized as (1) requiring primarily assumptions of the theory.1 Students were provided
spatial skills to answer, (2) requiring primarily content with a progression of simple to more complex exam-
knowledge specific to central-place theory, or (3) task-based ples of the spatial patterns of market centers (cities).
questions. The first category is referred to in data analysis The following day, day 2 of the instructional unit,
as content-independent, the second as content-dependent, and students were divided using a stratified random sam-
the last as task-based. All three question categories measure pling method. Half of the students (exclusive of the
spatial thinking as all include the essential components of control group) received instruction in the computer
spatial thinking as defined in Learning to Think Spatially lab using GST as a geovisualization tool. The other
(Committee on Support for Thinking Spatially, National half remained in the classroom using paper maps
Research Council 2006), that is, concepts of space, tools of and data tables. Working in pairs, both groups

25
Sandra Metoyer and Robert Bednarz

followed a written guided activ-

ity to support the investigation
of the spatial patterns of market
centers in the Czech Republic.
The first activity on day 2, for
both groups, explored the spatial
distribution of cities. The interven-
tion group used GIS layers devel-
oped in ArcMap, converted to
zipped Keyhole Markup Language
files (KMZ) and displayed in Goo-
gle Earth using proportional sym-
bols to represent population size.
Using the measurement tool in Goo-
gle Earth, students calculated dis-
tances between various market
centers. Using the road layer in
Google Earth, they explored trans-
portation routes among the market
centers. Using the draw tool and
without prompting, many students
added bold lines directly connecting
the market centers, thus enhancing
their ability to visualize the geomet-
ric patterns. And, by tilting the
view, students in the GST interven-
tion group were able to consider the
influence of terrain on the spatial
pattern of cities.
The comparison group com-
pleted the same activity. Instead
of digital maps, however, they
used laminated paper maps and
rulers to measure distances
(requiring scale conversion). The
paper maps displayed the same
remote-sensed images and infor-
mation layers as the Google Earth
representations, but lacked the
dynamic interactive nature of
Google Earth. Students using the
nondigital maps could not change
scale, orientation, or view angle.
Likewise, they were not able to
turn layers on and off. Instead,
they viewed the layers as multiple
static paper maps. Table 2 com-
Figure 4. Spatial-orientation test item example.
pares differences in features of the
tool of representation used by the
GST digital intervention group
and the nondigital comparison group. repeated measure design prior to and then following the
intervention. Efficiency and accuracy scores were calcu-
RESULTS lated for each test. The test results were used to (1) deter-
mine starting levels of the participants’ spatial skills, (2)
Changes to Spatial-Thinking Skills quantify change to participants’ skills following the inter-
The tests were administered to the three participant vention, and (3) explore changes in the three groups’ skills
groups (control, comparison, and intervention) using a following the intervention.

26
 Spatial Thinking Assists Geographic Thinking

The control, comparison, and

intervention group demonstrated
equal and moderate gains pre-
to post- in both 2-D and 3-D spa-
tial-visualization skills. The gains
were statistically significant at a
0.05 level for all groups for the
2-D spatial visualization and for
the intervention group for the
3‑D visualization. In contrast, the
groups demonstrated no change
in spatial-orientation skills. The
participants became more effi-
cient at orientation—they com-
pleted more items in the post-
than in the pretest—but demon-
strated no gains in accuracy.
This may indicate that spatial-
orientation skills are more resis-
tant or less malleable than spa-
tial-visualization skills. The
relatively equal performance in
accuracy for the three groups
also indicates that gains pre- to
post- were most likely due to the
test-retest effect and were not
affected by the instructional unit
or by the use of maps; digital or
otherwise (Fig. 6). An indepen-
dent samples T test was used to
compare means between males
and females. No statistical differ-
ences were found. Mean scores
on all measures of spatial skill
were essentially equal for male
and female participants.

Figure 5. Spatial-relations content test item example. Correct answer for the content- using descriptive statistics and
independent item (left) is A. Correct answer for the content-dependent item (right) is D.
For the three groups combined, accuracy for 2-D spatial
visualization increased significantly pre- to posttest (5.9%
gain, p < 0.00). Accuracy for 3-D spatial visualization also
increased significantly pre- to posttest (8.0% gain, p <
0.00). Accuracy scores for spatial orientation decreased
slightly, but a large significant gain in efficiency (10.7%, p
< 0.00) occurred. Maximum scores for all three spatial
skills tested were relatively high on the pretest, and either
at or near 100 percent in the posttests. In addition, meas-
ures of variance (standard deviation scores) were large,
especially for 3-D spatial visualization.
Changes to Spatial-Relations
Content Knowledge
Results of the content tests were
coded as correct or incorrect,
quantified, and then analyzed
comparison of means for the three
instructional groups. A significant
difference between the two treat-
ment groups’ and the control group’s scores was found
for the content-dependent and independent items. No sig-
nificant difference was found for the task-based items;
each group demonstrated substantial loss in scores pre- to
post- on the task-based items. Time on task was substan-
tially longer for the task-based items in the posttest than
the pretest. The researcher did not have an adequate
instrument (rubric) to create comparable difficulty level
between pretest task-based items and posttest items. In
retrospect, the observed decline in task-based scores pre-
to post- almost certainly occurred because the task-based

27
Sandra Metoyer and Robert Bednarz

items in the posttest were consider-

ably more difficult than the items in Table 2. Differences in the tools of representation.
the pretest, and thus, the changes in
scores do not provide a valid com-
Digital Group Nondigital Group
parison. Pre- and post- spatial-rela-
tions content scores were compared (Google Earth and GIS) (Paper maps and data tables)
for the three groups using an inde- Interactive: Students could adjust Noninteractive: Students could not
pendent T test. The variance was scale, altitude, perspective, and/or layers adjust scale, altitude, perspective,
similar for the groups, allowing use or layers
of the independent samples T test. Adjustable Scale: Students could easily Fixed Scale
Both treatment groups’ content zoom in and out
knowledge scores increased, but Layering: Students could turn on and No Layering:
only the intervention group showed view several layers displayed on Students viewed layers separately
statistically significant gains, a 15.0 one image on different maps
percent (p  0.01) increase in con- Dynamic: Images changed Static: Images did not change
Nonsequential: Students could explore Sequential and Linear: Students
tent-independent items and a 11.9
outside the region of interest and among viewed separate maps in a
percent (p  0.05) increase in con- the layers prescribed order
tent-dependent items. In addition to Digital Measurement: Students used Hand Measurement: Students used
testing for statistical significance, automated tools to measure distance a scale bar and a ruler to estimate
Cohen’s d was calculated to estimate and to determine scale distance and scale
effect sizes and to compare degree of
impact between the comparison
group and intervention group. The effect sizes for the Categories Based on Spatial-Skill Level
intervention group were larger than those for the compari- Based on their pretest spatial-skill accuracy scores, par-
son group: 0.54 and 0.30 for the content-independent and ticipants were placed into one of three spatial-skill groups:
0.47 and 0.26 for the content-dependent items, respec- low spatial, average spatial, and high spatial. The influ-
tively. The 2.5-week delay between the activity and the ence of starting spatial-skill level, sex, and method of
posttest strongly suggests that the content was acquired instruction on gains in content knowledge was explored,
and retained by the participants. Table 3 summarizes the using correlations and analysis of variance (ANOVA).
descriptive statistics and comparison of means by instruc- The scores for the three spatial-skill tests were posi-
tional group for the spatial-relations content test. tively correlated and results of pretests for the three
Gains in content knowledge were evident in both treat- groups were very similar with respect to sample size,
ment groups. Only the intervention group, however, dem- starting point, and variance. The pretest accuracy
onstrated significant gains. These
results suggest that using GST for
teaching and learning has a greater
positive effect on students’ content
knowledge than using an alternative,
more traditional approach. The large
standard deviations in each group,
however, suggest factors other than
choice of instructional method influ-
ence performance. The scores of
some individuals did not improve
using GST, and some did signifi-
cantly worse. Similar variation
occurred in the scores of the compari-
son group. This situation prompted
an analysis of the relationships
between the students’ spatial-visuali-
zation and spatial-orientation skills
and changes in skills and content
knowledge based on the instructional
Figure 6. Graphic comparison of mean scores by spatial-skill test and by group.
method in order to explore the best
*Statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the pretest and the
methods of practice and representa-
posttest mean scores.
tion for students with different levels
of spatial-thinking skills.

28
 Spatial Thinking Assists Geographic Thinking

instructional groups tabulated by

Table 3. Summary of spatial relations content test by instructional group. spatial-skill category is illustrated
in Figure 7.
n Premean Postmean Mean Difference Sig.
Spatial Thinking and Geographic
(std) (std)
Thinking. Starting spatial-skill level is
Content-independent Control * 20 53.9 (28.6) 43.3 (34.7) ¡12.7 0.11 related to change (gain or loss) in spatial
Comparison 41 57.1 (25.2) 65.0 (27.8) 8.5 0.13 skills. The low spatial-skill group had
Intervention ⱡ 41 56.7 (25.0) 71.5 (29.4) 15.0 0.01 the largest significant gains pre- to post-
Content-dependent Control * ᵻ 20 36.2 (21.7) 25.0 (23.3) ¡27.0 0.05 for 2-D and 3-D visualization skills. The
Comparison 41 39.3 (17.6) 44.9 (24.8) 5.9 0.19 average spatial-skill group also had sta-
Intervention ⱡ 41 39.5 (23.9) 51.7 (28.3) 11.9 0.05 tistically significant gains for 2-D and 3-
D visualization skills. None of the three
*Statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the control group and the other two
groups evidenced improvement in spa-
groups.
ᵻStatistically significant negative difference at the 0.05 level between the pretest and the posttest mean tial orientation. The high spatial group
scores. made very little, if any, gains in accu-
ⱡStatistically significant positive difference at the 0.05 level between the pretest and the posttest mean racy on any of the three spatial-skills
scores. tests. A ceiling effect may have limited
their gains. Based on these results, start-
ing spatial-skill level does influence the
scores for spatial skills, therefore, could be combined impact of training on spatial skills. The low spatial-skill group
and an average score used to divide individuals into had much more room for gain, and through the practice pro-
spatial-skill categories. This is not to argue that two- vided by testing and retesting, improved their spatial skills
dimensional visualization, three-dimensional visualiza- significantly.
tion, and spatial orientation are a single skill. An Starting spatial-skill level also influences gains in spa-
emerging body of evidence from behavioral sciences tial-relations content knowledge. Removing the control
and neuroscience suggests that these processes are group members, all three spatial-skill groups’ content-
physiologically and behaviorally distinct (Zacks and independent test scores increased. Only the high spatial-
Tversky 2005; Hegarty et al. 2006; Gersmehl and Gers- skill group, however, demonstrated significant gains. In
mehl 2007). In this study, however, the scores were the content-dependent item category, no change was evi-
aggregated to represent one measure for spatial skills dent for the low and only a small gain was made by the
because, in general, a relatively higher than average average spatial-skill participants. The high spatial group,
score on one measure was associated with a relatively however, demonstrated significant gains for both content-
higher than average score on the other two. Compari- independent and content-dependent scores.
son of the number of participants in the three This phenomenon was analyzed further by dividing the
spatial-skill groups into instructional
groups. Analysis revealed that the
high spatial-skill participants outper-
formed the low and average regard-
less of instructional strategy. High
spatial-skill individuals, males and
females, consistently outperformed
low and average individuals, and
the advantage was larger in the GST
than in the comparison group
(Table 4). These results suggest that
an individual’s starting spatial-skill
level influences change to spatial-
relations content knowledge espe-
cially for high spatial-skill individu-
als using GST, implying that
thinking geographically is closely
linked to thinking spatially.
High spatial-skill level positively
affects gains in spatial-relations con-
Figure 7. Participants in instructional group by spatial-skill category.
tent knowledge. Gains in spatial
skills were obtained through training

29
Sandra Metoyer and Robert Bednarz

and were evident in this study

from a test-retest effect. Gains in Table 4. Summary of mean spatial relations content test scores (%) by instructional group and
spatial skills are feasibly corre- spatial skill group.
lated to gains in spatial-relations
content knowledge. In other
n Pre Post Mean Diff. Sig. d
words, individuals who demon- (std) (std)
strated gains in spatial skills may
also have developed an advan- Comparison Content-independent Low 15 58.7 (25.6) 64.4 (38.8) 5.7 0.60 0.18
tage in geographic thinking. Average 12 50.0 (24.9) 63.9 (17.2) 13.9 0.13 0.66
This possible correlation was High 14 61.3 (25.6) 66.7 (22.6)x 5.4 0.48 0.22
explored using a scatterplot and Content-dependent Low 15 43.3 (20.7) 36.0 (24.1)* ¡7.3 0.30 ¡0.33
Pearson correlation coefficient. Average 12 30.6 (15.6)x 43.3 (25.3) 12.7 0.19 0.62
High ⱡ 14 42.2 (13.9) 55.7 (22.4)* 13.5 0.05 0.74
First, participants in the two
treatment groups that had Intervention Content-independent Low 14 50.7 (28.1) 61.9 (34.2)* 11.2 0.29 0.36
improved scores pretest to post- Average 16 62.5 (25.2) 70.8 (29.5) 8.3 0.26 0.30
test on combined spatial-skills High ⱡ 11 56.7 (20.6) 84.8 (17.4)*x 28.1 0.01 1.48
accuracy by 10 percent or more Content-dependent Low 14 37.8 (22.2) 45.7 (26.5) 7.9 0.41 0.32
were identified. Considering only Average 16 46.9 (23.7)x 46.3 (28.0) ¡0.6 0.94 ¡0.02
High ⱡ 11 31.9 (25.1) 67.3 (27.2) 35.4 0.01 1.35
individuals who had demon-
strated gains in spatial skills of 10 *Statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the high spatial and the low spatial group in the
percent or more and had received same instructional group for the same test.
instruction on central place the- xStatistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the intervention and comparison group in the
same spatial skill group for the same test.
ory, correlation between gains in ⱡStatistically significant positive difference at the 0.05 level between the pretest and the posttest mean scores.
spatial skills and gains in spatial
relations were explored.
No relationship existed (r D ¡0.17, p D 0.457). Students high level of spatial skill prior to instruction performed
with the greatest gains in spatial skill had little to no gains better on the spatial-relations content test. Furthermore,
in spatial-relations content knowledge. The greatest gains students with a high level of spatial skill performed better
in spatial relations were achieved by a few students with when using GST than when using paper maps. This was
the smallest spatial-skill gain considered for this group (10 especially true for males. Using GST to teach a spatially
percent). Spatial-relations content scores for the majority dependent concept is most beneficial to students who pos-
of individuals (fourteen out of twenty-one) either sess well-developed spatial skills. The link between spatial
decreased or remained unchanged regardless of changes thinking and geographic thinking is apparent. Higher lev-
in their spatial skills. This may be attributed to a lag time els of spatial thinking are correlated with superior geo-
between gains in skills and subsequent gains in the appli- graphic thinking.
cation of those skills. Or, it may be attributed to the diffi- Assumptions, informed by the literature, were made for
culties involved with knowledge transfer. Several the theoretical framework of this study. First, the use of
exposures or opportunities for applying a new skill or GST was assumed to have a positive impact on spatial
strategy is often required before it can be transferred to skills. This assumption was not supported. Use of GST
novel problem-solving situations. had no effect on students’ spatial skills. All groups had
similar gains in spatial-visualization skills, including the
DISCUSSION control group. Retesting did have a positive effect on spa-
In conclusion, the first research question asked, what tial skills. Improvement from training spatial skills is well
is the effect of using GST on students’ spatial-thinking supported in the literature. Therefore, the gains seen in
skills? This study found that instructional use of geo- spatial skills were most likely due to a training effect
spatial technologies did not improve students’ spatial- established by the repeated testing.
thinking skills. Gains in spatial skills were assumed to be positively cor-
The second research question asked, what is the effect of related with gains in content knowledge. This assumption
using GST on students’ content knowledge of a spatially was not supported. Gains in spatial skills had no relation-
dependent concept? Students utilizing GST demonstrated ship to gains in content knowledge. It was also assumed
greater gains in content knowledge than the students uti- that high spatial skills would correlate with better perfor-
lizing paper-and-pencil maps. Use of GST in this context mance on the spatial-relations content knowledge test.
was a more effective method for teaching a spatially This assumption was supported. In fact, only the high spa-
dependent concept than the traditional paper maps. tial group had significant gains on the spatial-relations
The third research question asked, what is the relation- content test.
ship between spatial thinking and geographic thinking? Sex differences were assumed to be present in spatial
Two notable relationships were evident. Students with a skills and in content test outcomes. More specifically,

30

males were expected to outperform females. This assump-
tion was not supported. Sex differences were neither pres-
ent in the pretest scores nor in the posttest scores. In
addition, no significant interaction effects were present
between sex and instructional method. However, differen-
ces in score gains between males and females on the con-
tent test were noticeable. Although not statistically
significant, high spatial males showed more of an inclina-
tion for the GST method than high spatial females. This
implies males and females may have interacted with the
content and instructional method differently. In general
however, males did not perform better than females on
spatial-skills or content-knowledge tests.
Caution in interpreting these results is necessary. The
sample group was small and the categories compared
within the sample group were smaller. Even with statisti-
cally significant results, the correlations could be random.
The groups were too small with too much variation to cap-
ture generalizable trends or patterns. The trends identified
were possibly random and due to chance. A follow-up
scaled study is recommended that considers issues of rep-
resentativeness and replicability.
Implications for K–12 geography education are many.
Spatial thinking is an important, yet unrecognized, cogni-
tive skill that has a substantial influence on student learn-
ing. Students with high spatial-thinking skills are better
prepared to learn spatially dependent concepts. Yet, even
for motivated and academically gifted students such as
those represented in this sample from geography honor
classes, the ability to think spatially varies greatly. In addi-
tion, spatial thinking is an amalgam of skills and pro-
cesses. It cannot be taught through traditional drills or
repetition. Geospatial technologies can extend students’
abilities to think spatially and understand geographic phe-
nomena, but GST is also an amalgam of tools and pro-
cesses. It should not be assumed that GST, in itself, will
improve spatial thinking or content knowledge without
paying explicit attention to spatial-thinking strategies and
integration of geographic inquiry.
Based on evidence from this study, GST should be
integrated into instruction of spatially dependent con-
cepts. However, in addition to teaching with GST,
teachers should scaffold the instruction into an authen-
tic problem-solving activity utilizing reform-based
teaching methods. Examples may include one or more
of the following: collaborative teams of students, delib-
erate practice of spatial skills needed for success using
GST (for example, a minilesson on orientation), refer-
ence guides for spatial vocabulary, or structured
assignments to promote metacognition about the activ-
ity and students’ own spatial thinking during the activ-
ity (van Asselen, Fritschy, and Postma 2006; Cooke-
Simpson and Voyer 2007). Students learn in a variety
of ways and require an astounding amount of cognitive
tools to become more effective learners.
Spatial thinking is but one cognitive tool, but an increas-
ingly important one. Geospatial technologies have become
Spatial Thinking Assists Geographic Thinking
ubiquitous and location matters now more than ever. The
widespread availability of GST, however, does not imply
that teachers can integrate these technologies effectively or
that students can use them competently. Society is awash in
spatial data and GST yet lacks the spatial thinking needed to
use GST to solve problems, make decisions, or affect policy
(Metoyer, Bednarz, and Bednarz 2015). Thus, the recom-
mendation here is that K–12 geography education should
advance an integrated model of instruction that emphasizes
teaching content with GST for the purpose of promoting
thinking spatially and, consequently, thinking
geographically.
NOTE
1. For more detail on the simplifying assumptions and
generalizations of Christaller’s central place theory, see
Favier (2011).
REFERENCES
Albert, W. S., and R. G. Golledge. 1999. The use of spatial cog-
nitive abilities in geographic information systems: The
map overlay operation. Transactions in GIS 3 (1): 7–21.
Baenninger, M., and N. Newcombe. 1989. The role of expe-
rience in spatial test performance: A meta-analysis.
Sex Roles 20 (5/6): 327–344.
Brosnan, M. J. 1998. Spatial ability in children’s play with
LEGO blocks. Perceptual and Motor Skills 87 (1): 19–28.
Burton, L. 2003. Examining the relation between visual
imagery and spatial ability tests. International Journal
of Testing 3 (3): 277–291.
Committee on Support for Thinking Spatially, National
Research Council. 2006. Learning to Think Spatially: GIS
as a Support System in the K–12 Curriculum. Washing-
ton, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Cooke-Simpson, A., and D. Voyer. 2007. Confidence and
gender differences in the mental rotations test. Learn-
ing and Individual Differences 17 (2): 181–186.
Dasen, P. R., and R. C. Mishra. 2010. Development of Geocen-
tric Spatial Language and Cognition. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Ekstrom, R., J. French, and H. Harmon. 1976. Manual for
Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests. Office of Naval
Research. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing
Service.
Eliot, J. 1987. Models of Psychological Space: Psychometric,
Developmental, and Experimental Approaches. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Favier, T. 2011. Geographic information systems in inquiry-
based secondary geography education. Ph.D. diss., VU
31
Sandra Metoyer and Robert Bednarz
University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands:
Ipskamp. ISBN No. 978-94-6190-105-7.
Forer, P., and D. Unwin. 1999. Enabling progress in
GIS and education. In Geographical Information Sys-
tems: Management Issues and Applications, Vol. 2,
ed. P. A. Longley, M. F. Goodchild, D. J. Maguire,
and D. W. Rhind, pp. 747–756. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Gersmehl, P. J., and C. A. Gersmehl. 2007. Spatial thinking
by young children: Neurologic evidence for early
development and “educability.” Journal of Geography
106 (5): 181–191.
Golledge, R. G. 2002. The nature of geographic knowledge.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92 (1):
1–14.
Golledge, R. G., and R. Stimson. 1997. Spatial Behavior: A
Geographic Perspective. New York: The Guilford Press.
Hall-Wallace, M. K., and C. M. McAuliffe. 2002. Design,
implementation, and evaluation of GIS-based learning
materials in an introductory geoscience. Journal of Geo-
science Education 50 (1): 5–14.
Halpern, D. 2000. Psychosocial hypothesis part I. In Sex
Differences in Cognitive Abilities, 3rd ed., pp. 229–276.
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates.
Hegarty, M., D. R. Montello, A. E. Richardson, T. Ishi-
kawa, and K. Lovelace. 2006. Spatial abilities at differ-
ent scales: Individual differences in aptitude-test
performance and spatial-layout learning. Intelligence
34 (2): 151–176.
Hegarty, M., and D. Waller. 2004. A dissociation between
mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abili-
ties. Intelligence 32 (2): 175–191.
Hsi, S., M. Linn, and J. Bell. 1997. The role of spatial reasoning
in engineering and the design of spatial instruction. Jour-
nal of Engineering Education 86 (2):151–158.
Janelle, D. G., and M. F. Goodchild. 2009. Location across
disciplines: Reflections on the CSISS experience. In
Geospatial Technology and the Role of Location in Science,
ed. H. J. Scholten, R. Velde, and N. Manen, pp. 15–29.
Philadelphia: Springer US.
Jo, I., and S. W. Bednarz. 2009. Evaluating geography text-
book questions from a spatial perspective: Using con-
cepts of space, tools of representation, and cognitive
processes to evaluate spatiality. Journal of Geography
108 (1): 4–13.
Kali, Y., and N. Orion. 1996. Spatial abilities of high-school
students in the perception of geological structures.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33 (4): 369–391.
Kerski, J. 2003. The implementation and effectiveness of
geographic information systems technology and
32
methods of secondary education. Journal of Geography
102 (3): 128–137.
Kompridis, N. 2000. So we need something else for reason
to mean. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 8
(3): 271–295.
Kyllonen, P. C., and J. Gluck. 2003. Spatial ability: Intro-
duction to the special edition. International Journal of
Testing 3 (3): 215–217.
Lee, J. 2005. The effect of GIS learning on spatial ability. Ph.D.
diss., Department of Geography, Texas A&M University.
Lee, J., and R. Bednarz. 2009. Effect of GIS learning on spa-
tial thinking. Journal of Geography in Higher Education
33 (2): 183–198.
Levine, S. C., M. Vasilyeva, S. F. Lourenco, N. S. New-
combe, and J. Huttenlocher. 2005. Socioeconomic sta-
tus modifies the sex difference in spatial skill.
Psychological Science 16 (11): 841–845.
Lloyd, R., D. Patton, and R. Cammack. 1996. Basic-level
geographic categories. The Professional Geographer 48
(2): 181–194.
Metoyer, S. K., S. W. Bednarz, and R. S. Bednarz. 2015.
Spatial thinking in education: concepts, development,
and assessments. In Geospatial Technologies and Geogra-
phy Education in a Changing World, ed. O. Muniz Solari,
A. Demicri, and J. van der Schee, pp. 21–33. Philadel-
phia: Springer US.
Mills, R. 1991. A new understanding of self: The role of affect,
state of mind, self-understanding, and intrinsic motiva-
tion. Journal of Experimental Education 60 (1): 67–81
Pallrand, G., and F. Seeber 1984. Spatial abilities and
achievement in introductory physics. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 21 (5): 507–516.
Quaiser-Pohl, C. 2003. The mental cutting test “Schnitte” and
the picture rotation test—Two new measures to assess
spatial ability. International Journal of Testing 3 (3): 219–231.
Sanchez, C., and J. Wiley. 2010. Sex differences in science
learning: Closing the gap through animations. Learn-
ing and Individual Differences 20 (3): 271–275.
Shin, E. K. 2007. Using GIS technology to enhance elemen-
tary students’ geographic understanding. Theory and
Research in Social Education 35 (2): 231–255.
Talley, L. H. 1973. The use of three-dimensional visualiza-
tions as a moderator in higher cognitive learning of
concepts in college level chemistry. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching 10 (3): 263–269.
Terlecki, M. 2004. The effects of long-term practice and
training on mental rotation. Ph.D. diss., Department
of Psychology, Temple University.
Thorndike, E. L. 1921. On the organization of intellect. Psy-
chological Review 28 (2): 141–151.
 Spatial Thinking Assists Geographic Thinking

van Asselen, M., E. Fritschy, and A. Postma. 2006. The direction giving and sex differences. Environment and
influence of intentional and incidental learning on Behavior 18 (2):192–213.
acquiring spatial knowledge during navigation. Psy-
Wright, R., W. L. Thompson, G. Ganis, N. S. New-
chological Research 70 (2): 151–156.
combe, and S. M. Kosslyn. 2008. Training general-
Voyer, D., S. Voyer, and M. P. Bryden. 1995. Magnitude of ized spatial skills. Psychometric Bulletin & Review
sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis 15 (4): 763–771.
and consideration of critical variables. Psychological
Zacks, J., and B. Tversky. 2005. Multiple systems for
Bulletin 117 (2): 250–270.
spatial imagery: Transformations of objects and
Ward, S. L., N. Newcombe, and W. F. Overton. 1986. Turn bodies. Spatial Cognition and Computation 5 (4):
left at the church, or three miles north. A study of 271–306.

33