skip to main content
10.1145/3585088.3593891acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesidcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Thinking Spatially About Data: A Developing Framework to Understand Children's Spatial Reasoning in Data Physicalization

Published: 19 June 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Encoding intangible data variables with visual, spatial, and physical properties demands a high level of spatial reasoning. The ability to reason spatially is widely deemed critical to science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) learning. While much research has explored the relationship between learning with visualizations and spatial skills development, little is known about how children use their spatial reasoning in constructing tangible visualizations. This work-in-progress investigates how data physicalization activities, organized within a Design module in primary classrooms in the Netherlands, provide a window to understanding children's spatial reasoning about data. Based on preliminary analysis, we identify six indicators of children's spatial reasoning as observed in their constructing processes and artifacts. Most children in the study used tangible materials of varied sizes, curated meaningful spatial arrangements, and employed different unitizing methods to encode numerical data with spatial properties. Some children adjusted the sizes, units, or spatial arrangement to refine their tangible visualizations, considered the pros and cons of two- and three-dimensional forms of presentation, and made creative use of spatial shapes. In summary, this case study offers insights into children's use of spatial reasoning in data physicalization creation and practical implications for situating data physicalization activities in formal learning environments.

References

[1]
David Kirsh. 2009. Interaction, External Representations and Sense Making. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1103-1108. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
[2]
Stuart Card and Jock Mackinlay. 1997. The structure of the information visualization design space. In Proceedings of VIZ'97: Visualization Conference, Information Visualization Symposium and Parallel Rendering Symposium, Phoenix, AZ, 92-99. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFVIS.1997.636792
[3]
Shaaron Ainsworth. 2006. DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, vol.16, no. 3, 183-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
[4]
Nora S. Newcombe. 2010. Picture this: Increasing math and science learning by improving spatial thinking. American educator, vol. 34, no. 2, 29-43.
[5]
Nora S. Newcombe. 2017. Harnessing spatial thinking to support stem learning. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 161, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/19939019
[6]
David H. Uttal, David Miller, and Nora Newcombe. 2013. Exploring and enhancing spatial thinking: Links to achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics?. Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 22, no. 5, 367-373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413484756
[7]
Harrison Kell, David Lubinski, Camilla P. Benbow, and James H. Steiger. 2013. Creativity and technical innovation: Spatial ability's unique role. Psychological science, vol. 24, no. 9, 1831-1836. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613478615
[8]
Kay E. Ramey and David H. Uttal. 2017. Making sense of space: Distributed spatial sensemaking in a middle school summer engineering camp. Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 26, no. 2, 277-319. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1277226
[9]
Jonathan Wai, David Lubinski, and Camilla P. Benbow. 2009. Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of educational Psychology, vol. 101, no. 4, 817-835. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016127
[10]
Jeffrey Buckley, Niall Seery, and Donal Canty. 2018. A heuristic framework of spatial ability: A review and synthesis of spatial factor literature to support its translation into STEM education. Educational Psychology Review, vol. 30, no. 3, 947-972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9432-z
[11]
Rhys George, Christine Howitt, and Grace Oakley. 2020. Young children's use of an augmented reality sandbox to enhance spatial thinking. Children's Geographies, vol. 18, no. 2, 209-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2019.1614533
[12]
Alissa N. Antle. 2007. The CTI framework: informing the design of tangible systems for children. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, 195-202. https://doi.org/10.1145/1226969.1227010
[13]
Arash Soleimani, Keith Evan Green, Danielle Herro and Ian D. Walker. 2016. A tangible, story-construction process employing spatial, computational-thinking. In Proceedings of the The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 157-166. https://doi.org/10.1145/2930674.2930703
[14]
Yvonne Jansen, Pierre Dragicevic, Petra Isenberg, Jason Alexander, Abhijit Karnik, Johan Kildal, Sriram Subramanian, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2015. Opportunities and challenges for data physicalization. In proceedings of the 33rd annual acm conference on human factors in computing systems, 3227-3236. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702180
[15]
Jack Zhao and Andrew Vande Moere. 2008. Embodiment in data sculpture: a model of the physical visualization of information. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Digital Interactive Media in Entertainment and Arts, 343-350. https://doi.org/10.1145/1413634.1413696
[16]
Xia Lin. 1999. Visualization for the document space. In Readings in information visualization: using vision to think, 432-439. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
[17]
Jean Piaget. 1952. The child's conception of number. New York: Humanities Press.
[18]
Bärbel Inhelder and Jean Piaget. 1964. The early growth of logic in the child. New York: Harper & Row.
[19]
Samuel Huron, Yvonne Jansen, and Sheelagh Carpendale. 2014. Constructing visual representations: Investigating the use of tangible tokens. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, vol. 20, no. 12, 2102-2111. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346292
[20]
Rahul Bhargava and Catherine D'Ignazio. 2017. Data sculptures as a playful and low-tech introduction to working with data. Presented at the Designing Interactive Systems, Edinburgh, Scotland. Retrieved from https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/data-sculptures-as-a-playful-and-low-tech-introduction-to-working-with-data/
[21]
Charles Perin. 2021. What students learn with personal data physicalization. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, vol. 41, no. 6, 48-58. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2021.3115417
[22]
Marije Kanis. 2019. Physical sensemaking: Crafting for an invisible world of data. In Workshop: Troubling Innovation: Craft and Computing Across Boundaries. The ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, United Kingdom. Retrieved from https://pure.hva.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/5665117/chi2019_physicalsensemaking_mk_resubmit.pdf
[23]
Wesley Willett and Samuel Huron. 2016. A Constructive Classroom Exercise for Teaching InfoVis. Pedagogy of Data Visualization Workshop at IEEE VIS 2016, Baltimore, United States. https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01511020
[24]
Amal Fatemah, Shahzad Rasool, and Uzma Habib. 2020. Interactive 3D visualization of chemical structure diagrams embedded in text to aid spatial learning process of students. Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 97, no. 4, 992-1000. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00690
[25]
Sarah Pule' and Jean-Paul Attard. 2021. Spatial cognitive processes involved in electronic circuit interpretation and translation: their use as powerful pedagogical tools within an education scenario. Design And Technology Education: An International Journal, vol. 26, no. 1, 45-69. Retrieved from https://ariadneproduction.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/2889
[26]
Mike Stieff, Mary Hegarty and Bonnie Dixon. 2010. Alternative strategies for spatial reasoning with diagrams. In: Goel, A.K., Jamnik, M., Narayanan, N.H. (eds) Diagrammatic Representation and Inference. Diagrams 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6170. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007
[27]
Yvonne Jansen and Pierre Dragicevic. 2013. An interaction model for visualizations beyond the desktop. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 19, no. 12, 2396-2405. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2013.134
[28]
Samuel Huron, Sheelagh Carpendale, Alice Thudt, Anthony Tang, and Michael Mauerer. 2014. Constructive visualization. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems, 433-442. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598566
[29]
Tiffany Wun, Jennifer Payne, Samuel Huron and Sheelagh Carpendale. 2016. Comparing bar chart authoring with Microsoft Excel and tangible tiles. In Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 35, no. 3, 111-120. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.12887
[30]
Samuel Huron, Sheelagh Carpendale, Jeremy Boy and Jean-Daniel Fekete. 2016. Using viskit: A manual for running a constructive visualization workshop. In Pedagogy of Data Visualization Workshop at IEEE VIS 2016. https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01384388
[31]
Andrew Vande Moere and Stephanie Patel. 2009. The physical visualization of information: Designing data sculptures in an educational context. Visual Information Communication. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0312-9_1
[32]
Hannes Waldschütz and Eva Hornecker. 2020. The Importance of Data Curation for Data Physicalization. In Companion Publication of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, 293-297. https://doi.org/10.1145/3393914.3395892
[33]
The World Bank. 2018. What A Waste Global Database. Data Catalog. Accessed through: Retrieved January 23, 2023 from https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/search/dataset/0039597
[34]
Samuel Huron, Pauline Gourlet, Uta Hinrichs, Trevor Hogan and Yvonne Jansen. 2017. Let's get physical: Promoting data physicalization in workshop formats. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, 1409-1422. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064798
[35]
Stuart Card, Jock Mackinlay and Ben Schneiderman. 1999. Readings in information visualization: using vision to think. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
[36]
Joel Schneider and Kevin S. McGrew. 2018. The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues, 73–163. The Guilford Press.
[37]
Ben-Zvi Dani and Garfield Joan. 2004. Statistical literacy, reasoning, and thinking: Goals, definitions, and challenges. The challenge of developing statistical literacy, reasoning and thinking, 3-15. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2278-6_1
[38]
Nora S. Newcombe and Andrea Frick. 2010. Early education for spatial intelligence: Why, what, and how. Mind, Brain, and Education vol. 4, no. 3, 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2010.01089.x
[39]
Sheryl A. Sorby. 1999. Developing 3-D spatial visualization skills. The Engineering Design Graphics Journal, vol. 63, no. 2. 21-32.
[40]
Heather Burte, Aaron L. Gardony Allyson Hutton and Holly A. Taylor. 2017. Think3d!: Improving mathematics learning through embodied spatial training. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, vol. 2, no. 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0052-9
[41]
Beth Casey, Nicole Andrews, Holly Schindler, Joanne E. Kersh, Alexandra Samper and Juanita Copley. 2008. The development of spatial skills through interventions involving block building activities. Cognition and Instruction, vol. 26, no. 3, 269-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177177
[42]
Zachary C. K. Hawes, Katie A. Gilligan-Lee and Kelly S. Mix. 2022. Effects of spatial training on mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, vol. 58, no. 1, 112-137. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001281
[43]
David H. Uttal, Nathaniel G. Meadow, Elizabeth Tipton, Linda L. Hand, Alison R. Alden, Christopher Warren and Nora S. Newcombe. 2013. The malleability of spatial skills: a meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological bulletin, vol. 139, no. 2, 352-402. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0028446
[44]
Jörn Hurtienne and Daniel Reinhardt. 2017. Teaching data physicalisation to HCI students—A case report. In Extended Abstract for Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS’17) Workshop on Pedagogy & physicalization: Designing learning activities around physical data representations, Edinburgh, UK.
[45]
Caiwei Zhu, Chloe Oi-Ying Leung, Eleni Lagoudaki, Mariana Velho, Natalia Segura-Caballero, Dietsje Jolles, Gavin Duffy, Günter Maresch, Marianna Pagkratidou and Remke Klapwijk. 2023. Fostering spatial ability development in and for authentic STEM learning. Frontiers in Education, vol. 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1138607
[46]
Yvonne Jansen and Kasper Hornbæk. 2015. A psychophysical investigation of size as a physical variable. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, vol. 22, no. 1, 479-488. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467951
[47]
Carmen Hull and Wesley Willett. 2017. Building with data: Architectural models as inspiration for data physicalization. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1217-1264. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025850
[48]
Richard Boyatzis. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[49]
Patricia Search. 2015. Interactive multisensory data representation. In Design, User Experience, and Usability: Users and Interactions: 4th International Conference, DUXU 2015, Held as Part of HCI International 2015, Los Angeles, CA, USA, August 2-7, 2015, Proceedings, 363-373. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20898-5_35
[50]
Claire O'Malley and Danae S. Fraser. 2004. Literature review in learning with tangible technologies. Technical report, FutureLab.
[51]
Orit Shaer and Eva Hornecker. 2010. Tangible user interfaces: past, present, and future directions. Foundations and Trends in Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 3, no. 1–2, 4-137. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000026
[52]
Paul Marshall. 2007. Do tangible interfaces enhance learning?. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, 163-170. https://doi.org/10.1145/1226969.1227004
[53]
James Patten and Hiroshi Ishii. 2000. A comparison of spatial organization strategies in graphical and tangible user interfaces. In Proceedings of DARE 2000 on Designing augmented reality environments, 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1145/354666.354671
[54]
Jeff Baker, Donald Jones and Jim Burkman. 2009. Using visual representations of data to enhance sensemaking in data exploration tasks. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 10, no. 7, 533-559. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00204
[55]
Yvonne Jansen, Pierre Dragicevic and Jean-Daniel Fekete. 2013. Evaluating the efficiency of physical visualizations." Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2593-2602. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2481359
[56]
Mi Jeong Kim and Mary Lou Maher. 2008. The impact of tangible user interfaces on spatial cognition during collaborative design. Design Studies vol. 29, no. 3, 222-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.12.006
[57]
Mi Jeong Kim and Mary Lou Maher. 2008. The impact of tangible user interfaces on designers' spatial cognition. Human–Computer Interaction vol. 23, no. 2, 101-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370020802016415
[58]
Susan C. Levine, Kristin R. Ratliff, Janellen Huttenlocher and Joanna Cannon. 2012. Early puzzle play: A predictor of preschoolers' spatial transformation skill. Developmental Psychology, 48, vol. 2, 530–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025913
[59]
Alissa N. Antle and Alyssa F. Wise. 2013. Getting down to details: Using theories of cognition and learning to inform tangible user interface design. Interacting with Computers, vol. 25, no. 1, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iws007
[60]
Tom Lowrie, Tracy Logan and Ajay Ramful. 2017. Visuospatial training improves elementary students’ mathematics performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology vol. 87, no. 2, 170-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2019.1653298
[61]
Meng Liang, Yanhong Li, Thomas Weber and Heinrich Hußmann. 2021. Tangible interaction for children's creative learning: A review. In Creativity and Cognition’21, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3450741.3465262
[62]
Gökçe Elif Baykal, I. Veryeri Alaca, Asim Evren Yantaç and Tilbe Göksun. 2018. A review on complementary natures of tangible user interfaces (TUIs) and early spatial learning. International journal of child-computer interaction vol. 16, 104-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.01.003
[63]
Susan J. Lamon. 1996. The development of unitizing: Its role in children's partitioning strategies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, vol. 27, no. 2, 170-193. https://doi.org/doi 10.5951/jresematheduc.27.2.0170
[64]
Kinnari Atit, Thomas F. Shipley and Basil Tikoff. 2013. Twisting space: Are rigid and non-rigid mental transformations separate spatial skills?. Cognitive processing, vol. 14, 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0550-8

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Data Physicalization and Tangible Manipulation for Engaging Children with Data: An Example with Air Quality DataProceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference10.1145/3628516.3655788(507-516)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2024

Index Terms

  1. Thinking Spatially About Data: A Developing Framework to Understand Children's Spatial Reasoning in Data Physicalization

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    IDC '23: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference
    June 2023
    824 pages
    ISBN:9798400701313
    DOI:10.1145/3585088
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 19 June 2023

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. constructive visualization
    2. data physicalization
    3. design education
    4. maker education
    5. spatial reasoning
    6. spatial thinking
    7. tangible user interfaces

    Qualifiers

    • Extended-abstract
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Conference

    IDC '23
    Sponsor:
    IDC '23: Interaction Design and Children
    June 19 - 23, 2023
    IL, Chicago, USA

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 172 of 578 submissions, 30%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)98
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9
    Reflects downloads up to 22 Dec 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Data Physicalization and Tangible Manipulation for Engaging Children with Data: An Example with Air Quality DataProceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference10.1145/3628516.3655788(507-516)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2024

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media