Experienced and Novice Teachers’ Concepts of Spatial Scale

Jones, M. Gail; Tretter, Thomas R.; Taylor, Amy; Oppewal, Tom

doi:10.1080/09500690701416624

Cited by 48 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Students from elementary through PhD, including those with visual impairments, estimate linear spatial magnitude better at human scales and worse at the extremes of scale, nanoscale to astronomical (Tretter et al, 2006a(Tretter et al, , 2006bJones et al, 2008Jones et al, , 2009aJones et al, , 2009b. Typically, the magnitudes of small-scale objects are overestimated, while the sizes of large-scale ones are underestimated; however, one study found that college students both under-and overestimate the sizes of small objects (Gerlach et al, 2014a).…”

Section: Conceptions Of Scale As Magnitudementioning

confidence: 96%

“…In contrast, estimation accuracy for objects at the microscopic level or smaller is discontinuous. There is a propensity to judge objects at scalar extremes as more similar in size than they actually are (Tretter et al, 2006a(Tretter et al, , 2006bJones et al, 2009bJones et al, , 2008. Those error patterns persist even when students use a model to support their explanations, specifically a scale model to illustrate astronomical distances.…”

Section: Conceptions Of Scale As Magnitudementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In-service teachers (Jones et al, 2008) and visually impaired teenagers (Jones et al, 2009b) are more accurate at estimating sizes of objects at the extremes of scale, both large and small, when using metric units than when using nonstandard units like body lengths. When comparing across studies, the authors found that visually impaired students are better at the extremes of scale than their sighted counterparts.…”

Section: Impact Of Formal Mathematics Instruction On Magnitude Estimamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Familiarity with linear metric measurement units is associated with better spatial size estimation by students and teachers (Tretter et al, 2006b;Jones et al, 2008Jones et al, , 2013Delgado, 2013a), perhaps putting Americans, who must learn two measurement systems, at a disadvantage. It is unknown whether facility with the metric system aids learning about scale because it relies on base-ten proportional relationships, thus connecting the metric system to broader numeracy, or whether people who are asked to estimate spatial magnitude using metric units simply do better if they are familiar with the metric system.…”

Section: Impact Of Formal Mathematics Instruction On Magnitude Estimamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Adults continue to use familiar referents as nonstandard measurement units to describe spatial scale, especially when measuring tools are not at hand. Units such as ''room size,'' ''me,'' or ''small'' serve as separate spatial categories along a linear dimension in which objects and distances can be grouped (Tretter et al, 2006a;Jones et al, 2008;Gerlach et al, 2014a). The self or human body remains an important linear spatial metric for all ages, which can be iterated to determine an object's length.…”

Section: Standard and Nonstandard Units As Magnitude Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Learning About Spatial and Temporal Scale: Current Research, Psychological Processes, and Classroom Implications

Cheek

LaDue

Shipley

2017

Journal of Geoscience Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geoscientists analyze and integrate spatial and temporal information at a range of scales to understand Earth processes. Despite this, the concept of scale is ill defined and taught unevenly across the K-16 continuum. This literature review focuses on two meanings of scale: one as the magnitude of the extent of a dimension and the other as a relationship between objects or events. We review 42 papers from science education and discipline-based education research (DBER) literature on students' conceptions related to one or both meanings of scale. Analysis of this prior work reveals a broader (though still limited) research base on domain general concepts of scale as magnitude and scant research on scale as a relationship. Learners begin reasoning about spatial and temporal magnitudes categorically by working with scales based on standard units and nonmetric values, such as body length. Concepts of scale magnitudes outside human experience are nonlinear. Facility with fractions and proportional reasoning are positively associated with the ability to reason about scale as a relationship. Two constructs from the psychological literature, structure mapping and the category adjustment model, offer theoretical accounts for these findings. We borrow a typology from the psychological literature to frame common geoscience instructional models in the context of spatial and temporal scale and suggest how instructors might facilitate students' reasoning about scale models. We identify a number of avenues for possible future research, including a critical need to understand how conceptual understanding of scale develops across the K-16 continuum. Ó

show abstract

Section: Conceptions Of Scale As Magnitudementioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Conceptions Of Scale As Magnitudementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Impact Of Formal Mathematics Instruction On Magnitude Estimamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Impact Of Formal Mathematics Instruction On Magnitude Estimamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Standard and Nonstandard Units As Magnitude Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Learning About Spatial and Temporal Scale: Current Research, Psychological Processes, and Classroom Implications

Cheek

LaDue

Shipley

2017

Journal of Geoscience Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Bridging the educational research‐teaching practice gap

Schönborn

Anderson

2010

Biochem Molecular Bio Educ

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

External representations (ERs), such as diagrams, animations, and dynamic models are vital tools for communicating and constructing knowledge in biochemistry. To build a meaningful understanding of structure, function, and process, it is essential that students become visually literate by mastering key cognitive skills that are essential for interpreting and visualizing ERs. In this article, first we describe a model of seven factors influencing students' ability to learn from ERs. Second, we use this model and relevant literature to identify eight cognitive skills central to visual literacy in biochemistry. Third, we present simple examples of tasks as a foundation for designing more sophisticated and complex items for assessing and developing students' visual literacy. We conclude that visual literacy is fundamental to the development of sound conceptual understanding and it is crucial to develop visual skills in parallel with meaningful learning outcomes in all biochemistry curricula.

show abstract

A Size and Scale Framework for Guiding Curriculum Design and Assessment

Kong

Douglas

Rodgers³

et al. 2017

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The concepts of size and scale in nanotechnology are difficult for most beginning engineering students to grasp. Yet, guidance on the specific aspects of size and scale that should be taught and assessed is limited.Purpose This research sought to empirically develop a framework for size and scale conceptualization and provide a blueprint to guide curriculum development and assessment.Design/Methods Through an exploratory sequential mixed methods design, we qualitatively examined 30 teams of 119 first-year engineering students' nanotechnology-based projects to identify concepts beyond those in the literature to create a Size and Scale Framework (SSF). We then created a blueprint with associated learning objectives that can guide curriculum and assessment development. To demonstrate the utility of the SSF blueprint, an SSF-based quiz was developed and studied using classical test theory with 378 first-year engineering students. ResultsThe findings categorized size and scale in terms of eight aspects: Definition, Qualitative Categorical, Qualitative Relational, Qualitative Proportional, Quantitative Absolute, Quantitative Categorical, Quantitative Relational, and Quantitative Proportional. The SSF can be applied as a blueprint for others to develop curriculum and assessment. The SSF-based quiz demonstrated acceptable properties for use with first-year engineering students.Conclusions Development of the SSF-based quiz is an example of how the SSF can be applied to create a classroom quiz to assess students' size and scale knowledge in the context of nanotechnology.Nanotechnology is the science of matter at dimensions between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers (nm). The study of nature at the nanoscale is driving the development of a wide range of processes including imaging, measuring, modeling, and manipulating matter (National Nanotechnology Initiative, 2008). Advances in nanotechnology enable novel engineering applications in agriculture, biotechnology, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, medicine, Journal of Engineering EducationV C 2017 ASEE.

show abstract

Experienced and Novice Teachers’ Concepts of Spatial Scale

Cited by 48 publications

References 11 publications

Learning About Spatial and Temporal Scale: Current Research, Psychological Processes, and Classroom Implications

Learning About Spatial and Temporal Scale: Current Research, Psychological Processes, and Classroom Implications

Bridging the educational research‐teaching practice gap

A Size and Scale Framework for Guiding Curriculum Design and Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About