ICT/ ELEARNING FOR DEVELOPING VISUAL SPATIAL
THINKING IN UNIVERSITY SCIENCE TEACHING
E. Marcia Johnson, Elaine Khoo, Bronwen Cowie, Willem de Lange and Rob Torrens
The University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand
Keywords: ICT, eLearning, Visual spatial thinking, University science teaching, Scholarship of teaching.
Abstract: This paper reports on two case studies (in Earth and Ocean Sciences and Engineering) that explored the
potential of ICT/ eLearning in first-year university courses. Findings from the research supported the value
of adopting three dimensional visualization software and eLearning tools to scaffold students’ emergent
visual spatial thinking and conceptual understanding. However, some constraints, which limited the
potential of the ICT/ eLearning approaches, were also identified. The research contributes to increased
understanding of appropriate conditions for the planning and application of ICT/ eLearning tools to bridge
students’ conceptual, visual, and spatial thinking in university-level science teaching.
1 INTRODUCTION
This paper reports on a two-year government-funded
research project based at the University of Waikato,
Hamilton, New Zealand, and which has the overall
goal of documenting, developing, and disseminating
effective and innovative eLearning practice. For the
purposes of this research, we have defined ICT as
including computers, mobile phones, mp3 players,
CDs, DVDs, application software (word processing,
spreadsheets, etc), and the Internet (for example).
eLearning is defined as resources and activities
using the Internet and the World Wide Web (Web)
to support teaching and learning.
Findings from two case studies (Earth and Ocean
Sciences and Engineering), in which ICT played an
important role, will be presented as there were
interesting similarities in how the lecturers used ICT
to develop students’ visual scientific thinking. Both
cases were characterized by delivery of academic
content through large-group lectures (delivered by
senior academic staff) and lab-based practical
sessions (supervised by tutors). Findings in this
paper derive from the lab-based work, as it was in
these sessions that students actively used ICT to
develop visual spatial scientific thinking skills and
bridge their application to field-based tasks. Such an
approach, in which technology is used to scaffold
learning, contributes to ongoing academic discussion
about the relationship between the virtual and the
real in the teaching of science. The paper’s
discussion focuses on the research approach adopted
and the pedagogical implications of the findings as
opposed to measures of student learning outcomes.
2 RESEARCH METHOD
The project has been guided by one overall research
question that asks “How are different lecturers
exploiting the potential of ICT/ eLearning to support
university-level student learning?” This paper
focuses on the presentation and discussion of
qualitative data collected through lecturer and tutor
reflections and facilitated student focus group
discussions. The research project received formal
university-level human research ethics approval and
all people have participated on a strictly voluntary
basis.
Consistent with qualitative research, a constant
comparison approach to data analysis has been
adopted (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). As data were
collected, emergent themes were identified through a
process of inductive reasoning (Braun and Clarke,
2006) and then reported, discussed, and debated by
the entire research team at our regular meetings.
73
Johnson E., Khoo E., Cowie B., de Lange W. and Torrens R..
ICT/ ELEARNING FOR DEVELOPING VISUAL SPATIAL THINKING IN UNIVERSITY SCIENCE TEACHING.
DOI: 10.5220/0003297800730078
In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2011), pages 73-78
ISBN: 978-989-8425-50-8
Copyright
c
2011 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
3 LIMITATIONS OF THE
RESEARCH
The participants in this research project represent a
convenience sample of lecturers and students in one
university-level context and are not representative of
possible participants across different university
settings. Nevertheless, a textured view of
instructional practices and multiple participants’
beliefs, expectations, and reactions to the
implementation of different ICT and innovative
pedagogical practices within that setting was
obtained and, importantly, is consistent with
research findings reported elsewhere (Levin, 2004;
Patel, 2010; Whitworth, 2006). However, a key
limitation of this study is the possible omission of
relevant ideas and perspectives from people who
were not included.
4 OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
STUDIES
In both Earth and Ocean Sciences and Engineering,
lecturers sought to exploit the potential of ICT to
contribute to students’ development of visual spatial
thinking and to help them bridge from lab-based
assigned exercises to real-world tasks. Students in
the Earth and Ocean Sciences need to develop an
understanding of the complexity, yet interrelatedness
of the Earth’s systems and the various visual means
used to represent this complexity (Akpan and
Strayer, 2009). In Engineering students must be able
to visualize and rotate objects in three-dimensional
space and to pictorially represent complex ideas.
Across both disciplines, students need to use
imagery and narrative to design, develop, and
express abstract concepts such as time, energy, and
space (Edelson, 2001; Kastens et al., 2009). Recent
studies of the ways mathematicians and scientists
think indicate that these professionals work in
similar ways to generate and validate knowledge –
and through a range of agreed practices. Not only do
they use discipline-specific technical verbal
languages, they also employ a range of
mathematical, graphical, diagrammatic, pictorial,
and other modalities of representation (Lemke,
2000).
4.1 Earth and Ocean Sciences
and Google Earth (GE)
The Earth Science and Ocean Sciences case study
investigated the impact of combining physical and
eLearning activities for the development of
geoscientific thinking and context-specific
knowledge. Key goals of the Earth and Ocean
Science degree program are to develop students’
geoscientific thinking and practical skills,
specifically their ability to think spatially, develop a
geoscientist’s understanding of time, view the earth
as a complex system, and develop the necessary
skills to conduct fieldwork (Kastens et al., 2009). At
the University of Waikato, undergraduate papers in
Earth and Ocean Sciences make frequent reference
to landforms to help students develop an
understanding of the earth’s layers and how
particular landforms have developed over time.
Another key aim, particularly at first year level, is to
prepare student for practical fieldwork. However, as
the student population has become more diverse, an
increasing number of learners have had no personal
experience of the locations being studied. This lack
of prior familiarity with the physical environment
limits students’ ability to maximize learning
experiences in the field and develop competence in
observation and data-collection – essential skills for
an earth scientist.
Previously in the course, artifacts, such as maps
and aerial photographs had been used with first year
students, but the diversity of cultural and physical
abilities in classes made it difficult to ensure
satisfactory engagement and progress by all
students. In addition, various multi-media
approaches, including geographic information
systems (GIS) and virtual fieldtrips, had been trialed
as ways to develop students’ scientific thinking
skills but had been of minimal success due to cost,
technological requirements, and user interface
complexity. However, freeware such as GE (a
virtual map displaying satellite images of the surface
of the Earth) now provides an economical and
simple interface with relatively low technological
requirements. Accessing GE on university or
personal computers is straightforward, with no
specific licensing restrictions. Further, with the
release of Google Streets for New Zealand, there
exist a large number of web overlays for New
Zealand locations that facilitate three-dimensional
(3D) visualization (spatial thinking), with access to
environmental data such as glacier extent and real-
time wave and weather conditions. Thus, GE has the
potential to facilitate new learning opportunities for
a diverse range of teachers and students by
supplementing physical space (the lecture theatre,
labs, and fieldtrips). Moreover, the software’s data
are updated continuously and so that the virtual lab-
CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
74
based resources are more current than more
traditional textbook or other print-based materials.
During the course, students attended lab sessions
during which they utilized GE, in conjunction with
maps and aerial photos, to examine physical objects
around the University of Waikato campus and
landforms in nearby locations. Having measured and
examined local objects within the GE environment,
students then stepped outside the lab and measured
the same physical objects, such as a lamppost and
bench seat, which they had been viewing virtually.
The lab exercise developed students’ proficiency
using the GE navigation and measurement tools but
also allowed them to visit (virtually) the locations
referenced in lectures before their fieldtrip to a
nearby West Coast ocean beach. As part of the
fieldtrip activity, students compared their
expectations, determined from the virtual GE “pre-
visit”, to the physical reality of the beach. In
addition, they were later able to use GE to revisit
fieldtrip locations and review what they had
encountered in the field. Such ability to enhance
physical activities through virtual exploration, to
compare measurement of objects in GE with the
reality of outdoor places, and to review fieldwork
offered rich pedagogical opportunities to scaffold
the development of visual and spatial thinking
processes. However, what was not known were the
possible constraints to students’ learning posed by
either the virtual-real scaffolding approach or GE
itself and insight into these potential problems (and
any other) were specifically sought in the case study.
4.2 Engineering and Computer-aided
Design (CAD)
“Foundations of Engineering” is a compulsory, first-
year course for Engineering students enrolled in any
of the university’s Engineering streams (Mechanical,
Electronic, Software, Materials and Process, and
Biochemical Engineering). The nature of the course
is that it provides a broad introduction to
engineering concepts, with particular emphasis on
problem-solving and the design process. The
laboratory component reinforces these concepts by
requiring the students to complete a design/ build/
test group project in which students design, create,
and then race remote-controlled model speedboats.
During the initial four weeks of lab-based
instruction, students are introduced to a CAD
software package called SolidWorks
©
(a 3D drawing
package), as knowledge of CAD is considered an
integral component of most modern engineering
disciplines. SolidWorks is widely used in industry
where it is considered to be more intuitive to learn
and use than the Pro/ENGINEER package
previously used in the course.
As CAD is just one component of the course, not
its primary focus, students’ exposure to Solidworks
is limited to a total of six hours of supervised lab
time learning the software but with the possibility of
using the computer lab in their own time or
installing the software on their own computer. In the
initial three-hour lab the tutor introduces students to
the relevant tutorial exercises that accompany
SolidWorks and helps them acquire some
proficiency with it. During the final three-hours
students are expected to use SolidWorks
independently (but with the tutor still available to
offer help as required) to draw a basic boat hull.
Each boat-building group (syndicate) is expected to
produce CAD drawings of the boat(s) they will build
in the lab, however, it is usually only one or two
people in the group who will work on the more
detailed design drawings. No familiarity with CAD
or drawing software is assumed although students
are expected to be familiar with the use of
computers.
From previous experience in the course, the
lecturer knew that some students struggled through
the CAD component and achieved the bare
minimum, while others produced results far beyond
what was required or expected. As with any student
group, a range of abilities and motivations is to be
expected, however, it was acknowledged that the
process of introducing students to SolidWorks might
not be as effective as it could be. Due to overall time
constraints in the course, providing students
increased supervised lab time was not an option but
increasing eLearning support was a possibility.
Thus, this case study sought to discover the main
opportunities and constraints associated with the lab-
based teaching of CAD software (specifically
SolidWorks) and what tools or techniques could be
employed to improve instruction.
5 FINDINGS
5.1 Developing Visual Spatial Thinking
5.1.1 Visualization of Key Course Concepts
The Earth and Ocean Sciences lecturer (L1)
highlighted the value of GE as a tool to visualize key
concepts in the course.
I started playing with GE and thought, “We
could use this” because it’s visualizing [the]
ICT/ ELEARNING FOR DEVELOPING VISUAL SPATIAL THINKING IN UNIVERSITY SCIENCE TEACHING
75
earth’s surface… GE allows us to visualize what
is going on at a site in terms of shape and terrain.
… It’s one of the hard things for people coming
into our area. Some people have good spatial
skills, others don’t. Our problem has always been
how do we teach what we are doing to those who
can’t innately visualize spatial relationships.
L1’s students supported the value of using GE as a
tool to help them visualize landforms and other earth
features.
It makes it easier because you’re actually
visualizing stuff, like real stuff. A topography
map has mountains and that’s nice, but you
actually see real features [on GE], an old flood
[plain] and bits of deposits. You can’t see that on
maps.
Similarly, the Engineering lecturer (L2) agreed that
using SolidWorks was a valuable tool to aid
students’ visualization of 3D objects and drawings in
the course.
In the past without the software, there may be
some issues depending on how well the engineer
was able to visualize things in 3D. You get a set
of drawings which are on a 2D page with
perhaps a 3D model then it goes off to be
manufactured…. There would be much greater
reliance on physical prototypes whereas the trend
now is virtual prototyping. The CAD software
helps you to develop CAD drawings that you can
manufacture from.
L2’s students agreed with the idea that SolidWorks
was a valuable visualization tool.
We can use SolidWorks to draw up what we
want the boats to look like and take that drawing
instead of trying to visualize everyone else’s
talking and just discussing. You actually have to
draw it up and everyone can agree on it.
5.1.2 Visual Manipulation of Ideas
L1 described how GE allowed his students to
manipulate the viewing angles of land surfaces so
they could visualize the interrelationships between
different features.
The advantage of GE is that you can play around
with it. You can change the view angle… GE in
this course is really to get people to get some
experience with it, but also to show the
relationships between landforms and place.
The ability to manipulate the viewing angle to
explore spatial relationships and concepts helped
L1’s students.
It was best when we were looking at beaches
cause you could turn it onto its side and work out
how steep the geography behind it was instead of
looking straight down on it.
L2 valued the use of SolidWorks in giving students
the opportunity to consider a design from different
angles and orientations as part of the
conceptualization process.
With the 3D software, because you have this
ability to rotate and turn these images around,
more reminiscent of holding it and looking at all
the different surfaces, potentially you can see
some of the issues there because you’ve got this
ability to rotate it around and see all these angles.
L2’s students reported being more motivated to learn
when given this opportunity to easily explore and
manipulate a design concept.
When you can actually just make it on the
computer, make it 3D and be able to turn it
around, that’s just way better, just so much fun.
5.1.3 Visualization of Layers of Detail
L1 and his students both appreciated the fact that GE
allowed access to a variety of information and level
of detail.
and because it’s an online resource, there’s a
whole lot of other things they can explore...
sightseeing pictures, they can see other people’s
images, there are volcanoes and if you click on
the volcano you get the latest data summary of
its history, all these things pop up. Here’s a tool,
we want you to do this, but it’s there for you to
find other things.
Similarly, the SolidWorks software allowed detailed
planning and designing in L2’s course.
I’ve had to design brackets and that kind of stuff
and to be able to do it all on a computer and see
it all finished before you make it, is like a
bonus… learning how to use it, you can design
heaps of just anything… and that’s what
SolidWorks is all about. [student quote]
5.1.4 Learning the “Tools of the Trade”
L1 highlighted how adopting GE in the course could
assist students to become familiar with the
terminologies, functionalities, and skills of the Earth
and Ocean Sciences professions.
In terms of GE, is to introduce them to the
functionalities including measuring elevation and
size of objects ... [this helps in] teaching students
to look at all the information provided to them,
thinking about the information on GE, ie what
season is it, what is the angle of the sun.
L2 supported the importance of using authentic ICT-
based tools to scaffold students’ learning in
CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
76
Engineering.
… to introduce students to real tools that
engineers will use, even if it’s not SolidWorks,
the CAD stuff is something that engineers will
use…
5.2 Constraints Limiting the Potential
of ICT
In spite of the potential of GE and SolidWorks,
various constraints existed, for example a lack of
time to practice and learn how to use the software
and the heavy course demands at university level.
L2’s student stated:
This [learning to use the software] almost needs
to be a course in itself. It wasn’t long enough for
someone to teach us what we needed to know to
design a boat. We can design a boat in here but
that’s only because of the steps and there is no
way I can do it again if I get stuck somewhere.
In addition, significant resourcing and technical
issues included inadequate numbers of computers
for students to use in the formal GE lab sessions,
insufficient numbers of tutors to assist students’ lab-
based work, and insufficient additional copies of
SolidWorks (proprietary software) for students to
download to their own computers.
A number of students reported that on their own
they had located YouTube videos about using
SolidWorks and other publicly accessible eLearning
material, but such additional resources were not
generally made available in the course. Students also
faced problems such as losing files (Engineering),
difficulty saving very large files on university
servers (GE), and inadequate access to broadband
from their homes (GE).
There were also key pedagogical issues across
the courses. In Earth and Ocean Sciences, students
expressed initial confusion about the objectives of
the GE-based tasks, while in Engineering students
stated that more detailed explanation and guidelines
about the overall boat design project were needed.
Although SolidWorks was updated on a yearly
basis, the eLearning tutorial material was not, which
presented a number of mismatches between the
software and the instructional documentation. L2
acknowledged this constraint and added that it was
the company’s responsibility to attend to this issue.
Each year the company releases a new version
[of SolidWorks]… [but] the built-in tutorials in
the software haven’t been updated to reflect the
new version. The company needs to do this. The
documentation needs to be accurate or else it
throws students off but this [updating of tutorial
material] isn’t the case here.
Given that the tutorials were critical to the teaching
of SolidWorks, yet were not up-to-date, the tutor
was very busy answering students’ questions during
lab time. Something he did this serially and without
structuring or restating for the entire group. Finally,
in an attempt to assist as many students as possible,
the tutor often took control of the mouse and after a
few “clicks” put students back on the right track. As
a result many students were unable to self-assess and
correct future problems.
Taking the mouse off me and then clicking
around, he [the tutor] only had to do 2 clicks and
he’d lost me. I didn’t know where he’d gone. I
don’t know how he got there. So leaving the
mouse in the students’ hands and explaining the
steps would be better.
6 DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSIONS
In New Zealand, as in other developed nations, the
university sector is experiencing challenges to
teaching and learning practice. Universities are
increasingly adopting ICT and eLearning to engage
and motivate students, to provide additional support
for teachers, and to extend learning opportunities
beyond the classroom walls. While insights from
overseas research can guide and inform eLearning
practice within New Zealand universities, we believe
that the importance of developing a deep
understanding of local contexts and practices cannot
be underestimated.
A key finding in this research was that 3D
visualization software, such as GE and SolidWorks
could scaffold students’ emergent visual spatial
thinking and conceptual understanding. Specifically,
the eLearning approach provided students with
opportunities to perceive multiple layers of detail in
visual representations and taught them how to use
authentic “tools of the trade”. While it might be
argued that the best way to teach abstract concepts
contributing to the development of visual spatial
scientific thinking is through direct interaction with
nature (Earth Science) or materials (Engineering),
the reality of modern university teaching precludes
or limits the extent to which students can be
involved in either. Although in this research we
found that ICT did contribute to the development of
visual spatial scientific thinking and helped scaffold
students’ conceptual learning, the practical realities
of a lack of appropriate resourcing and time
ICT/ ELEARNING FOR DEVELOPING VISUAL SPATIAL THINKING IN UNIVERSITY SCIENCE TEACHING
77
constraints presented limitations. However,
overwhelmingly the most serious constraints were
pedagogical and lecturers needed opportunities to
reflect on course planning, structuring, and
assessment issues. In itself, this is not a surprising
finding and has been reported elsewhere in
published literature (Clark 2009; Crook 2008).
What was different about this research project
was the multidisciplinary nature of the team and our
regular face-to-face meetings. Through the sharing,
debating, and reflecting upon teaching, participants’
awareness of possible pedagogical refinements was
raised. Whitworth (2006) in his discussion of
research into eLearning environments advocates
such a holistic and participatory approach, but
acknowledges that this method can potentially lead
to competing interpretations of research results. In
fact, in our context we have not experienced
competing views, possible because of the range of
our disciplines, but rather have found that our
regular and shared “conversations” about technology
and its role in teaching and learning have been
highly effective for extending our experience of the
scholarship of teaching (Shulman, 1999). Such
practice is consistent with Patel’s (2010) definition
of the scholarship of teaching in which practitioners
engage in ongoing critical reflective practice about
teaching, within a public interdisciplinary forum,
and with the explicit goal of designing teaching
activities such that meaningful learning can occur –
arguably the intended objective of all pedagogical
undertakings.
To sum up, the imaginative use of eLearning
tools to bridge the virtual and the real domains and
to develop visual and spatial thinking have
contributed new and different opportunities for
learning in our university environment. However, it
was the frequent, targeted, and multi-modal
communication of research data and emerging
findings via face-to-face, print, electronic, and
formal and informal communication that generated
new opportunities for reflection upon technology-
enhanced instruction. There is much to be gained
from ongoing critical interdisciplinary discussion
about the conceptual understandings that different
disciplines share, and the role of ICT and eLearning
within university teaching.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge funding support
from the Teaching and Learning Research Initiative,
New Zealand Council for Educational Research,
Wellington, New Zealand.
REFERENCES
Akpan, J., Strayer, J., 2010. Which comes first: The use of
computer simulation of frog dissection or conventional
dissection as academic exercise?, The Journal of
Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, vol.
29, no. 2, pp.113-138.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in
psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol.
3, pp.77-101.
Clark, R. E., 2009. Translating research into new
instructional technologies for higher education: the
active ingredient process, Journal of Computing in
Higher Education, vol. 21, pp. 4-18.
Crook, C. 2008. Web 2.0 technologies for learning: The
current landscape – opportunities, challenges and
tensions, http://www.becta.org.uk (Accessed 1 March
2009).
Edelson, D. C., 2001. Learning-for-use: A framework for
the design of technology-supported inquiry activities,
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 38, no.
3, pp.355-385.
Kastens, K. A., Manduca, C. A., Cervato, C., Frodeman,
R., Goodwin, C., Liben, L. S., Mogk, D. W., Spangler,
T. C., Stillings, N. A., Titus, S., 2009. ‘How
geoscientists think and learn’, EOS 90, vol. 31,
pp.265-272.
Lemke, J., 2000. Multimedia literacy demands of the
scientific curriculum, Linguistics and Education, vol.
10, no. 3, pp.247-271.
Levin, B., 2004. Making research matter more, Education
Policy Analysis Archives, vol. 12, no. 56.
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n56/ (Accessed 30 July
2009).
Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E., 1985. Naturalistic inquiry.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Patel, F., 2010. Exploring a model and approach to the
scholarship of teaching: The scholarship teaching
academy, The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, vol. 1. Available at:
<http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cjsotl_rcacea/> (Accessed 20
August 2010).
Shulman, L. S., 1999. Visions of the possible: Models for
campus support of the scholarship of teaching and
learning. Comments made at meetings during
November and December. Available at:
<http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/elibrary/visions-
possible-models-campus-support-scholarship-teaching
-and-learning> (Accessed 20 August 2010).
Whitworth, W., 2006. Dynamic but prosaic: A
methodology for studying e-learning environments,
International Journal of Research and Method in
Education, vol. 29, no. 2, pp.151-163.
CSEDU 2011 - 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
78