Assessing Spatial Thinking Ability

151
GEOSPATIAL THINKING: Educating the Future Spatial Citizens
11. Assessing Spatial Thinking Ability
Charcharos, C.; Kokla, M.; Tomai, E.
School of Rural and Surveying Engineering, National
Technical University of Athens, Greece
Abstract. Spatial (and geospatial) thinking has been well
studied and recognized as an important ability of humans and
especially for young people and young adults, who most of the
times use it subconsciously, from interpreting maps and
diagrams to navigating in familiar and non-familiar
environments. However, spatial thinking ability is not easy to
estimate, because spatial thinking is an amalgam of different
factors (e.g. spatial perception, spatial orientation, spatial
visualization, mental rotation etc.). Various tests have been
developed, especially from teachers and psychologists, which
in their majority assess one factor of spatial thinking, either at
small scales or large scales, but no test has been developed yet
from researchers engaged in the Geographic Information field
to assess spatial thinking in a holistic way. So, this paper
underlines the need to develop such a test.
Keywords. spatial thinking, assessment, test, factors

152
Introduction
What is common in tasks such as reading a map, finding your
way in a shopping mall, interpreting a diagram, and
understanding the spatial distribution of a phenomenon or the
association of places and events? They are all tasks that rely on
a mental skill called spatial or geospatial thinking. Spatial
thinking has lately been acknowledged as an important ability
both for sciences and everyday life. A report from the US
National Research Council (NRC, 2006) entitled "Learning to
Think Spatially: GIS as a Support System in the K-12 Curriculum"
underlined that "without explicit attention to [spatial literacy],
we cannot meet our responsibility for equipping the next
generation of students for life and work in the 21st century".
Spatial thinking is considered as a key ability for the
STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics). Research results stress the rewarding effects of
developing geospatial skills in increasing the participation in
STEM disciplines, lacking of which acts as a barrier for students
leading them to drop out (Uttal & Cohen, 2012). Even more,
spatial thinking is a vital talent for achieving STEM innovation,
however due to being neglected by educational systems it has
been missed. Lately, spatial thinking has also been
acknowledged as highly relevant to social sciences and
humanities (Goodchild & Janelle, 2010), as well as critical for
several tasks required in daily life, such as giving and following
directions, navigating in known and unknown spaces, and
interpreting images, graphs, and diagrams. Furthermore,
understanding central visual-spatial notions such as scale and
generalization finds also its cognitive analogy to the way people
learn, communicate, or deal with (not necessarily spatial)
everyday life issues. It actually constitutes a very important and

153
new approach to learning (learn-to learn), differing from the
more established auditory-sequential type of learning.
Spatial and geospatial thinking are used as identical
concepts, but there is an important difference that
distinguishes them. In order to achieve that distinction,
someone should fully understand the models of geographic
space, which can be categorized based on the projective size
relative to the human body and the mobility. For example,
Montello (1993) believe that the geographic space consists of
four major classes: figural, vista, environmental and
geographical. The figural and vista space are projectively
smaller than human body or equal to human body respectively
and can be apprehended without appreciable mobility, while
the environmental and geographical space are projectively
larger or much larger than the human body and can be
perceived via mobility or maps respectively. So, Golledge
(2008), using the previous model of geographic space, notes
that the te spatial efe s to the figu al a d ista spa e,
hile the te geospatial efe s to the e i o e tal a d
geographical space.
Although, the importance of spatial thinking in STEM
fields and in everyday life has been widely studied, the
assessment of spatial thinking abilities of young people and
young adults has not been given the appropriate attention.
Various tests have been developed, that assess significant
factors of spatial thinking, such as spatial visualization or spatial
orientation, however those tests cannot assess spatial thinking
ability as a whole.

154
Identification and Assessment of Spatial
Thinking Factors
11.2.1. Categorizing Spatial Thinking
In order to be able to assess spatial (and geospatial) thinking,
researchers have first to conduct a literature review and record
all those skills and abilities which consist spatial (or geospatial)
thinking, both in small and large scales of space24
. Many
researchers have dealt with this issue, such as Linn - Peterson
(1985) who considered that spatial thinking is not an one-
dimensional ability but rather an amalgam of three factors:
spatial perception, spatial visualization and mental rotation.
The above factors are considered as sub-factors of visual-
spatial abilities by Lohman (1979), who also introduced the
te opti al a ilit . “i e the , othe si ila atego izatio s
have appeared by adding some new categories, such as the
fa to “peeded ‘otatio that assesses the ti e eeded to
answer a mental rotation question). A major differentiation
made by Carrol (1993), who introduced five general spatial
thinking factors (visualization, spatial relationships, flexibility of
closure, closure speed and perceptual ability). These factors
refer mainly to small scales of space while for large scales,
Halpern (2000) and Bell - Saucier (2004) introduced the factors
D a i “patial A ilit a d E i o e tal A ilit
respectively.
Except from the above categorization and depending
on the point of view of the researcher, various other
categorizations can be identified, that cluster the spatial
24
The te s all s ale efe s to figu al a d ista spa e, hile the
te la ge s ale efe s to e i o ental and geographical space.

155
thinking factors rather than propose new ones, such as the one
of Newcombe and Shipley (2015) in which the spatial thinking
factors are clustered into the following: (a) Intrinsic-Static
(coding spatial configuration or shape of objects), (b) Intrinsic-
Dynamic (transforming spatial coding of objects including
expansions or reductions in size, rotation, cross-sectioning,
folding, benching, visualizing change over time, relating 2- and
3-dimensional views to each other), (c) Extrinsic-Static (coding
spatial location of objects relative to other objects or to a
reference frame), and (d) Extrinsic-Dynamic (transforming inter
relations of objects as one or more them changes location). As
it s o ious, this luste efe s ostl to small-scale factors and
less to large scale factors. Allen (2003), in his effort to discover
how small-scale assessed abilities are related to environmental
learning and wayfinding in large-scale spaces, and establish a
framework that could assist him in asking questions about
small-scale and large-scale spatial abilities, distinguishes three
functional families: object identification, object localization
and traveler orientation. Each family is associated with
different spatial thinking factors, for example o je t
ide tifi atio fa il is asso iated ith speed of losu e,
flexibility of closure and spatial scanning.
11.2.2. Testing Spatial Thinking Ability
For most of the above-mentioned factors, various tests have
been developed, which assess usually one or a couple of factors
and not spatial thinking in its entirety. For example, the Card
Rotation test (French, et al., 1963) assesses two-dimensional
orientation and rotation, the Hidden Image test, the Rod and
Frame test, and the Water Level test assess the flexibility of
closure (and at the same time the spatial relations), the Paper

156
FormBoard test assesses two-dimensional spatial visualization.
Also, there are more complex tests, such as the Surface
Development test that can assess three-dimensional mental
rotation. Those tests are came from the Kit of Factor-
Referenced Cognitive Tests (available from the non-profit
organization Educational Testing Service), have well
established construct validity and are selected mostly from
researchers, who are interested in factor-referenced tasks,
which require a brief time. (Ekstrom, et al, 1976).
It is worth mentioning that different variations of the
above-mentioned tests have been developed over the years
but the central idea remains the same. Those tests are
addressed to a wide public, ranging from elementary students
to students who are in the early stages of higher education, as
well as in adults. Obviously, the degree of difficulty escalates,
according to whom those tests are addressed, however the
objective remains the same; the assessment of spatial thinking.
Those tests may be used either for research purposes
conducting experiments about the development of spatial
thinking, from childhood to adulthood, or for occupational
purposes to assess spatial ability of adults in order to
determine their career paths
These tests have been created mainly by teachers,
psychologists and scientists engaged in social psychology and
a e used i ps hologi al esea h to easu e hu a s spatial
thinking. However, only a small part has been developed by
scientists engaged in the field of Geographic Information (by
geographers or GIscientists for example). As a consequence,
those tests identify spatial skills under the perspective of
psychology and not under the broad spectrum of spatial
thinking, as indicated by Hegarty (2002).

157
It should also be noted that these tests are
characterized as self-reported, meaning that the researcher is
not involved in the questionnaire completion process and the
participants answer the questions as they consider
appropriate. However, the contribution of the researcher
during the completion process of the test is important, for
clarifying any questions of the participants, as confirmed by the
fact that in experimental studies where experimental groups
and control groups are used, usually control groups have better
results than experimental groups due to the explanations given
to control groups before carrying out the test (Golledge et al.,
2008).
At this point, it should be stated that according to
Hegarty (2002), although these tests may be used for spatial
concepts, associated with different scales of space, as
appointed by Montello (1993), they are more suitable for the
classification of spatial skills and not for determining human
spatial thinking in its entirety. Also, these tests can be used only
to determine small scale visual-spatial abilities, while for large
scale spatial abilities, such as navigation or guiding someone to
a specific place providing him/her with the appropriate verbal
instruction.
Despite the fact that there are numerous tests which
can estimate some factors of spatial thinking, tests that
determine spatial thinking in a holistic way are limited. Two
examples of the latter are the Spatial Intelligence Test (SIT)
originally created by Nu Nu Khaing (2009) and also used by
Myint and Win (2011) in Asia and the Spatial Thinking Ability
Test (STAT) created by Lee and Bednarz (2012) in USA.
“IT as eated to a o odate the ou t s
(Myanmar) specific needs. Usually, spatial ability tests, can be
characterized as non-verbal, but this does not indicate that are

158
also culture-fair tests. This claim are strengthened by Barke
(2001), who has proved that cultural factors may have
influences on spatial ability and is in agreement with the
research conducted by Berry (1971). SIT assessed the four basic
factors of spatial thinking: spatial visualization, perception,
orientation and manipulation, using Paper Folding test, Paper
Formboard test, Figure Rotation test and Block Rotation test
respectively, as shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 2 Tests used at SIT (Nu Nu Khaing, 2009)
On the other hand, STAT is a revised edition of Spatial
Skills Test (SST)25
, and was created to assess how students
develop spatial thinking by reason of the fact that teachers
sta ted to use the Tea he s Guide to Mode Geog aph AAC,
2015), which helps them to incorporate spatial thinking skills
25
SST was created by Lee and Bednarz (2009) to investigate the
possi le effe ts of GI“ lea i g o ollege stude ts spatial thi ki g
ability.

159
into their classes. Aspects of spatial thinking abilities covered
by STAT are shown in Fig. 2 and include (Lee & Bednarz, 2012):
 comprehending orientation and direction,
 comparing map information to graphic information,
 choosing the best location based on several spatial
factors,
 imagining a slope profile based on a topographic map,
 correlating spatially distributed phenomena,
 mentally visualizing 3-D images based on 2-D
information,
 overlaying and dissolving maps, and
 comprehending geographic features represented as
point, line, or polygon
Fig. 2 Selected items from the STAT (Lee & Bednarz, 2012)

160
“o, it s o ious that both SIT and STAT neglect to assess
spatial thinking factors regarding large-scale spaces and STAT is
more oriented to connect GIS activities (zone of influence,
topology, georeferrencing, interpolation, network) with some
small-scale spatial thinking factors. It should be noted that
these GI“ a ti ities a e esse tial fo so eo e s spatial thi ki g
but are not constitute spatial thinking factors. For example, if
someone wants to mentally examine the way that a city affects
the nearby rivers (zone of influence), will rely on spatial
visualization and spatial perception.
Suggestion for Developing a Spatial Thinking
Ability Test for Education
From the previous discussion the need for developing a spatial
thinking ability test for educational purposes, that assess both
small-scale and large-scale abilities, is made evident. This
section provides some guidelines of how such a test should be
developed. SIT and STAT tests are adequate to form the basis
of the new test and in particular for the part dealing with small-
scale skills. The reason is that SIT has well established construct
and face validity, while STAT has moderate reliability and
construct validity. Although its moderate validity and reliability,
it is suitable for testing both university and high school
students.
Regarding large-s ale skills the e a e t tests that
examine more than two components simultaneously, so to
form the basis of the new test, several individual tests will be
used. Indicatively, the experiment made by Montello, Hegarty
and Richardson (1999) for navigation in real and virtual spaces
or the standardized self-report scale of environmental spatial
skills (Santa Barbara Sense of Direction – SBSOD) may be used.

161
The first step for the development of the spatial
thinking ability test is the delineation of the objectives as well
as the skills to be measured and also the specification of the
target group of the participants. For example, the test will
address to adults, students26
or both, measure spatial
perception, visualization and orientation (small-scale spatial
abilities) and sense of direction, perspective topology and
spatial updating (large-scale spatial abilities) in order to
examine the spatial thinking ability in a holistic way, or
i estigate the le el of stude ts spatial thinking ability by
several variables (age, gender, and ethnicity), so the educator
adapt his/her course to the specific needs of the students.
Then, some technical issues will be finalized, which will
ensure the practicality of the test. Such technical issues are:
determination of required time and representation means
(text, picture, graph or map), maximizing spatial activities,
minimizing verbal activities required to answer correctly
because as found by Just and Carpenter (1985) many spatial
tasks are solved via verbal analytic processes. Then, the
development of the spatial activities according to the
objectives pursued can be done. For the evaluation of changes
in spatial thinking abilities over a period of time, two different
but equivalent versions of the same test could be developed,
whose questions will be slightly different but covering the same
spatial thinking factors (pre-test, post-test).
The test should also be checked for validity and
reliability. Initially, a pilot study will be conducted with a
relatively small number of participants (teachers, secondary
and higher education students) in order to make a preliminary
assessment of the validity and reliability of the test and correct
26
The te stude t efe s espe iall to ou g people a d ou g
adults (those between 13 – 19 and 20 – 25)

162
as many errors and omissions as possible (questions that have
more than one correct answers, questions that are quite
difficult, adjusting the required time, improving not
understandable questions). After correcting the errors
resulting from the pilot study, the test will be checked once
again for its reliability and validity and if the results are
satisfactory, the test will be ready for use by the general public.
Checking the validity of the test includes check for:
 Content validity; whether the questionnaire identifies
all the factors of spatial (and geospatial) thinking.
During this check, the content validity ratio will be
calculated (using a team of experts for each spatial
thinking factor).
 Construct validity; the degree to which a questionnaire
reflects the real theoretical meaning of the variable
that claims to measure. During this check, the
convergent validity (whether the new test is related to
other existing tests which have acceptable validity and
reliability) and the discriminant validity (the opposite
of the convergent validity) will be examined.
 Face validity; examines the appearance and
configuration of the questionnaire. Face validity
cannot be assessed by statistical methods and it
depends on the opinions of those who complete the
test.
Checking the reliability of the test includes check for:
 Test-retest reliability; measures the degree of
correlation of the answers of a participant in two
different time periods.

163
 Alternative forms reliability; eliminates the "memory
effect"27
by creating similar forms of the test.
 Split-halves reliability; estimates the degree of
correlation of participants' responses between two
separate parts of the test.
 Internal consistency reliability; estimates the
consistency of participants' responses to the test
items).
Conclusions
The above discussion reveals the necessity of developing a test
by someone who is engaged in the field of Geographic
Information and who will guide the participants during its
completion in order to achieve the best possible estimation of
spatial thinking, in a holistic way that covers both small and
large scales. The role of the GIscientist is crucial for the
development of the spatial thinking ability test because the
majority of the tests have been developed by scientists who
does not fully understand the wide range covered by the term
spatial as a GIs ie tist. Also, the GIs ie tist is the o e
suita le pe so to la if a pa ti ipa ts uestio s a out the
spatial thinking ability test.
27 During the check for test-retest reliability, when the interval between the
tests is relatively small, then there is an increased chance for the participants
to be familiarized with the test and to give the same answers, based on their
memory.

164
References
Allen, G.; (2003). Functional families of spatial abilities: poor
relations and rich prospects. International Journal of
Testing, 3(3), pp. 251-262.
Association of American Geographers (AAC). (2015). Teachers'
Guide to Modern Geography. Retrivied 09 27, 2015,
Available at: http://www.aag.org/cs/tgmg
Barke, H.; Engida, T.; (2001). Structural chemistry and spatial
ability in differrent cultures. Chemistry Education:
Research and Practice in Europe, 2, pp. 227-239.
Bell, S.; Saucer, D.; (2004). Relationship among environmental
pointing accuracy, mental rotation, sex and hormones.
Environment and Behavior, 36(2), pp. 251 - 265.
Berry, J.; (1971). Ecological and cultural factors in spatial
perceptual development. Canadian Journal of Behavioral
Science, 3, pp. 324-329.
Caroll, J.; (1993). Human cognitive abilities: a survey of factor
analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ekstrom, R.; French, J.; Harman, H.; Dermen, D.; (1976). Manual
for kit of factor referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Services.
French, J.; Ekstrom, R.; Price, L.; (1963). Kit of reference tests
for cognitive factors. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing
Service.
Golledge, R.; Marsh, M.; Battersby, S.; (2008). Matching
geospatial concepts with geographic educational needs.
Geographical Research, 46(1), pp. 85-98.

165
Goodchild, M.; Janelle, D.; (2010). Toward Critical Spatial
Thinking in the Social Sciences and Humanities.
GeoHournal, 75(1), pp. 3-13.
Halpern. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilitites (3rd Ed.
ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hegarty, M.; Richardson, A.; Montello, D.; Lovelace, K.; Subiah,
I.; (2002). Development of a self report measure of
environmental spatial ability. Intelligence, 30, pp. 425-
447.
Just, M.; Carpenter, P.; (1985). Cognitive coordinate systems:
Accounts of mental rotation and individual differences in
spatial ability. Pshchological Review, 92 , σσ. -172.
Lee, J.; Bednarz, R.; (2009). The effect of GIS learning on spatial
thinking. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33(2),
pp. 183-198.
Lee, J.; Bednarz, R.; (2012). Components of spatial thinking:
Evidence from a spatial thinking ability test. Journal of
Geography, 111(1), pp. 15-26.
Linn, M.; Petersen, A.; (1985). Emergence and characterization
of gender differences in spatial abilities: A Meta-analysis.
Child Development, 56, σσ. -1498.
Lohman, D.; (1979). Spatial ability: A review and reanalysis of
the correlational literature. Stanford, CA: Staford
University School of Education.
Montello, D.; (1993). Scale and multiple psychologies of space.
In A. U. Frank, & I. Campari, Spatial information theory: A
theoritical basis for GIS (Lecture Notes in Cmputer
Science) (pp. 312-321). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

166
Myint, A.; Win, N.; (2011). A Study of Spatial Intelligence of
Middle School Students. Universities Research Journal,
4(6).
Newcombe, N.; Shipley, T.; (2015). Thinking about Spatial
Thinking: New Typology, New Assessments. In J. S. Gero,
Studying visual and spatial reasoning for design creativity
(pp. 179-192). Netherlands: Springer.
NRC, (2006). Learning to think spatially: GIS as a support system
in the K-12 curriculum. Washington D.C.: National
Academies Press.
Richardson, A.; Montello, D.; Hegarty, M.; (1999). Spatial
knowlede acquisition from maps and from navigation in
real and virtual environments. Memory and Cognition,
27(4), pp. 741-750.
Uttal, D.; Cohen, C.; (2012). Spatial Thinking and STEM
Education: When, Why and How? In Ross, B.; Psycology of
Learning and Motivation Volume (Vol. 57, pp. 147-181).
Oxford: Academic Press.

Assessing Spatial Thinking Ability

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Assessing Spatial Thinking Ability

Similar to Assessing Spatial Thinking Ability (20)

More from Amy Roman

More from Amy Roman (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Assessing Spatial Thinking Ability