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.

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

 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

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

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

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

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