f. .. SJOZJLILInIi> . 15.; _ , all
A tr; ufibuYqunwnibuanvfiu i... ....
.. .. 1......fluu.§m94wnxn. , gash? u ..
INL I II fir: . .1 I .5530. ..
.- . I .A r... I tit... Ibwwwfiu. .flmwgm. L éw __..., . . .
I . , u .7: t .1 u; f; . I
. . I .1 . ’Lll .gVMUMSGRHHL.fi5NF.1. I. Iflinrufy; R4". _ I
.. . . $55.4“ : . A. - «c... 1 .xfii. .. , 2
. .._H . s l. . (Mu-1.“...meMWflWWMMmWV. an... ..)l-V~le1-¥IE111
. . . numb... q . Immwflu...l5fi I. hm. . -
. runnwafin 3.... 3.}... a. .. .
. mitouwuku. . .

Mirna»; .... 1.15411.I..Qx . .x
. I u .uWIwWJJM‘I.JIMmIaLW«%M&WWM 1..

          

  

. 5....
4.

      

     

    

 

I 'l'h‘
I! -'~ I:
l

4‘10. |

  

'I
r.
v».:“?‘blv"’:’

         

: ' .1! _. . .
.. .' :J “5.3 l: . |

IHII‘
' I“
$2.1
L“!
I];

1H:

E -

I
n
§~
74.
l\
; I
3.
‘1
LL
J0
g!
9

I

I ">..5' :: l
| (.‘Hiut‘lefl‘ l v

.r:
‘2

 
 

I

..l..

‘ ”I‘:.‘:;
I

  

          

 

.. 11.9. ... i . I _
a)! JihnfiNfi-fiu. .. ...I carburviuwllifmum In... H. ... .4 . . 4.5.... H: h
I , - Hm

 

    

 

If“ V. . (WW:

I 30%- iv Iiummmmfluyg. 1
W. In. $.11 P.

.4: .. .. I -1... .U. x I. 1.9
y! I . . .unv .. I Fu’ 1 v I. .‘ .‘vl
‘ I . . LI . rL..)I|Ihvf I I: . 1111» a. .11 .
.. . s t I 3 .. . , .. Shangfi uJDIII‘RvIIIE ... I... .181 .IIIIIIHWV.T..HN--
.I. - I 1 3.7.3.1.. a . 711.!!! 19 It! ..g.F—Iv.fiuhuh..,ficfluufi.*.
. .I. . “wt.-. .3; I: p 1 ..I .I ll II . I. ; II . .
mhnr - KHILQH hI :LI.».. . X r 8 $305.30.. «a? 1.7%.. Er .

1L1 _. . r. .nIIJI... 11114.... m .1. 2 I .. 51. 2r J... .300... .1

I ..v I n.'|.t - o

I)!!! (I it I .L, . I III I‘ O 01- IIIIIVII... ‘3 it! I I V.
bums. . spununhmuunr.-rznuflt.. .w. I..- ,Ixsfisuflltkwt .nE... . -x I... I .H
I. INI V- . . . .

‘J

     

D n . -

.....»I..I.I.flNHltNflnI-I( .. u I. . c
)‘,‘-.t‘ In ‘ I. 5 -k 1' ‘¢"I ‘1'1‘1.
(II. I! :Ila‘vi‘10v'vv“

III lc . ‘ Utl..o.‘ il‘u-CIIII?

I. It? I I an t 09.33.9I10 trog’loSOI

. . II; B In .Il‘
“ “l( D " ' f I

. A. . I I Illicit

. . lulu: ." «Ii - .
a.

   

 

'Ifilt)..{v|

 

 

.. ln.o}l‘g'
III.
IIIIJHI. I.
a II 3.13;? 3
4'56 II‘I"

        
 

v
c.
I
I.
lul’l .cll vv cl clip... i’}!olvfidflovu; )..VI6¢
Q.- IIIIOIAIIII:

   

 

         
       

 

 

. I I; III-III 03% II...WIH;IIYIII
II. I. II}: III...- I III-:- IIIII.:.II«'.. 1. I o
723. $18!.JilleQI. IIIIIKI‘ .IIIIIIIrIIII.
A i... ‘1‘...“ ‘ ‘l‘!l."lt ‘0..‘V-'I‘-u ul' §
till III»! I...II'I‘.. u‘II. . I..- II II II
II .0» ‘ .IIIL‘II’la: .31. ..y .n. I11:L!v-r. I... . . II I I I {III III III
‘\ .II II -iv! I‘? It. IVI‘ul‘IolKI'IINt‘IIIIC.‘ I t I lvla‘lltcr III -‘III F In“
I . §.v I}- 0 oi ~|I~3lutv VIII .. .03. .. IN. I4.) I: I’-¥III I‘lv
Iii-v3.0.1.1 IEIIIIII'VQAIIII .III. ...:.4IIL0‘IL:.. o. . .c . . I... [1.]. 3’0” I‘ III
I . I‘III. I‘lli‘IIIQgIIIIIIIOI 13...: .III'. .. . I . .u I- o. I . I I.ll.|0.v.lOI.I.IIII.
.oIII Ir J~|.II.IchIII'I.£.vI|-Ifi“. .I".t.II.oI...I.PI.~El .. . .-IO.II{I III . II I. II [III ‘11! .III
II.“ II It'll 5.11.11! OIIAD (III: I.‘.v\..‘ t I, . 2 I. , I III: II» .. I I... \‘III -|l|
3: A. I .IIIIIIQII 1.. {Ah-1‘. III... .I.JI. l.II..II|Il.II'I~.c. . III- .nIfIIIII‘II “liar II
I I to. I. III?- vl‘ r11. .IIvaIv‘ l I. of .I .
. v.11..- Ill‘lni‘ I o.II-LI.2 K In.-. IIII I
.. 0.!1 ‘. rl. . . .. . I . .
I -1; 4 /

 

 

I r
.
. 3:21.193 . . . .
. I. II I... 1.3.1:. I
. . {III}: . oh. . 1
{lulu}... I! luau; 10.1IIIuIfl..II..It
II...- ..~I.lI«IhrI-IIIII\.1- .
I 1v}. .0 .0 1 . C O
. . III'...DI.HI .
18.115... .

                  

 

     

     

 

III II , I
-4 u
I o- I I I
I. I Intd
v . . I INII‘JII’
I I III!" ..III .I‘IIIII
ITIII . L I II. .II .Ifl‘IILII
.I. . i.II-I.II‘IA¢,
.. u. . III.10II|IIIIII‘I"II.
. 3 II: o I olltl'i.‘
. . . . . I I. «It [I '6'! i}
I. . , n: III. 3..» nio-i’ulll'ol
.III .I. I. I II .IIIIIII.-. IIIII‘I .IILIIK. 5,116!
l... I I '.III'|.I .IIII'IIII)I\.J I Illtlllla
. ‘IrIlII II 19*: (IIIIIII. .I til)“. III} ('Illllltl
l'.i [I IIlv .\ I!.. c. . . .I. II. IIII.I.II'|J Ill"!
.IIIII.I .IYI-I.O I.I.. .Io.‘ I .lIuI ].I 11'! (Ill..-
. III II....|I.I.l. I...a‘.PI.IIIAu'II III’IV.I\II..Il|lrIQIoo.
.II‘ IIIIIK.‘I..I ulvlnntl‘ . II III... I. all-\IIII‘IIIIII’
II ..II II.;..I.I-§1.IIIII II. II'IIIIII’ IOIIIIIIIIIOI
I IIIIJFIJ.‘ III III I..I. .|.! I III-II... .. 5"
. IIIII.II’.I .‘I ‘III‘I'II: I‘IIII..IIII .LIII "g
. IIIIIIDI.‘II .. .I:IIII . .pII I.I|.k|..‘lr|'\'I
I. .III £1.19: II III! It‘ll .II. .III. IIIII' I .II'.
~ III Ill . .IILII II I. I§I.§\III‘I]‘III"'rIIII
I I ....-I|OIII¢IIIII In liVIIILIIf ..I III! I I’ll
I 1|}... III.-. . . 21-5,... , 1.11!!— I
I. . .rIII III .I‘IIII. I IIIIIOI I I. .II. . .I..II.II.III’
t’l‘a ‘ .‘Ilel..I|.lz in... .II I'll?! llfilfil’
. . III: .II VIII IIII‘IIIIIII .III.ID.I I‘:. I, It! I. I)
I I IIIDII I II III.III.II..II In; |II I'VIIIIII . ti)
...IIOII.II lell'Ilslu.I-.II [Is-III].IIII..U}.I.A.II|Y
I I . III .I.‘o.|IxII.Iq IIIIVIIIIII‘L .lfill‘ll‘ll'l
vovu I I II." I I. lllCI.-. II.I.II. . I. IIIINJOI‘II“
I ..I.I.\ito 00‘“: III.I.I lIIqllli‘.I IIoI. .I‘XKIIII
. , ....OI.II-III .IlII.!.I||. IIIIIIIIIIIIOI'IIII.III IIIII
IIIIVIoBIII III.\. I III. IVPI’IIQI g‘iIIOQltii
-. I «III... I....IIIIII.|J lIJDIII,I|:IIIIIIIIOuIIII|v|II
.I . I III .IIIIIIIIIIIIIII.-I¢IIIII or... III I. IJ'III
. . .- .I... 41,...IIJ.... .Ir ...\..I---.‘I|IIIII
.. b .III.‘IIIIIIII [It If.“ [lg-II IIIIII'IDIYIII.
. I. ll .<.-.r00).)u.ll ‘QIIOIIIII {II-I..AIOIIIJII‘I§
.. . a IIIIIIIIOIIOII. «II IIIIIIII.IOI.IIOIICIIAIII~!1§
II I I I. IbzII II .II»- IIl’lLIIIII IlivIlIl I *EII
. III: I. IV." I III».I.II .0} Jo IIIIIIIIIIII...\IP'I|IIIIII
I’ll) I I I Ill-IIII'. I, ....'n|lIl-IIII\IAI. j E II [IE l.\..|a . .3 l IIIIII.I.I\III\."IIOIOOII.IIIIIIII III I!
I Ih’l‘dlllh'fi A \I II I.Eil’|!‘v0¢£’lt§lt¢gvl v6.0 ‘\Il.l}l-II‘inllIi-Ol'lvn‘looI‘nv'lllbi“
| 10. II \IloiIIIt' .Q.(II'IO 11‘ l {I‘. I . I I.. 1' .I . l9||II|I~.-|’IIIII!I.O.IIII
It. I. 0" ll 00 in!“ ‘14“- II! It? I I .‘IoIIO\II'.IO'II.I§'Ii'
[ I: II!‘ I'll/iii ll‘l

    

 

 

I I III
I IIIIIIIII uliIfifia‘cb I .- o . . . 2 .
WIIIIIIIIIIMUWIIUIHHIIIIIII'I IIilIIIII I.IHHIIhmIInHIcIIwIIUH1u l . III... . . . .. I -. ..-
III. , .III III II. II 1;... I (III. 1.0. III»: 33(1):. . -. I lit}; :. -2
. I. I.I I . .llaII IIIIIIII .03}, III....I...I....I o I... IIIIIICIEI.XIKI.:II.IIIIIF-2I I .113!
. Innr II In 1 . . II»! . III? . EIIIE
. - IIIIIIII I l I
o r u. I .u.’ JI.}.II1EEBVI‘JE{II’

mmUuullllIll-‘lIltlllIllIt HITIIIIII I IlIlIII I..I{',..,I .iu III .3 .IIIII,
I . . III. .II. II {.11.}. Is... 12...”.

  

III‘.‘ .4 . ..I

. I... .

F
I. r\ -IVL V lull». 1| I . .
I. I IP- lrlvr.b.>b pr» .IL

T HESis

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

CHILDREN ' S MACROSPATIAL
REPRESENTATIONS

‘ presented by

Ray J. Chin

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M. A . degree in Psychology

 

(Nu CA1 )Q. Qq WIN/K

Major professo‘

 

 

0-7539 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

,-

V‘, 15‘“ r .V 5’ ._' ‘-?
iy'flfi km,” 5’

   

' ‘.'.v‘q“ fl“:- - w"

CHILDREN'S MACROSPATIAL REPRESENTATIONS

by

Raymond J. Chin

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1983

ABSTRACT

CHILDREN'S MACROSPATIAL REPRESENTATIONS
by

Raymond J. Chin

This study investigated the development of spatial
abilities as reflected by six- through nine-year old chil-
dren's maps of familiar environments; age differences in
mapping were of particular interest as indicating the
Piagetian transition from preoperations to concrete
operations. This study also attempted to induce dis-
equilibrium shifts via novel visual stimuli, and to see
if such shifts could account for an earlier than expected
transition. Possible gender differences were also of
interest since there exists ample evidence for gender
differences in spatial abilities during adolescence and
beyond, but evidence for its occurrence at earlier ages
is mixed.

The results strongly supported a developmental
acquisition of spatial abilities with evidence for a
Piagetian transition. Some evidence was found that the
novel visual stimuli interfered with performance on a map
drawing task and enhanced performance on a subsequent
map reading task. Substantial gender differences were
found on both tasks, indicating that complex measures of
spatial abilities may involve more difficulties for girls

than for boys.

This work is dedicated to my father,
Chin Jin Pon/Loy Chin, a "paper son"
who died January 23, 1978.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am most grateful ‘UD Dr. Lucy Ferguson for her
guidance, editorial help and patience throughout this
endeavor. My other committee members, Dr. Charles Hanley
andIhm.John Paul McKinney, also provided valuable profes-
sional and personal support. Although not a committee
member, Dr. Charles Steele<1fthe Art Department was instru-
mental in facilitating my access to the children of this
research.

I am indebted to Dr. Jeff Richburg, principal of
Wardcliffe School and his fine teaching staff--N. Campbell,
B. Hetrick, C. Knox, G. Lusis, J. Steele and J. Velicer—-
whose assistance was invaluable.

I also wish to acknowledge my data collectors and
coders, Lydia, Tih, Ellen, Carol, Jamie, Janine, Jaymie,
Glyce, Karen, Debbie and Susan. Special appreciation goes
to Jane Pearson for our spatial conversations and to Chuck
Talor who introduced me to the Cyber 750 and SPSS.

Finally, I want to express my heartfelt gratitude to
those who made it possible: my parents, my family, my wife's
parents, John, Pauline, Winnie and, last but assuredly the

most, Mary and Jason for their love.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE AND FIGURE LIST. . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 4

INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF
LITERATURE . . . . . . . .

Stage Differences.
Disequilibrium . .
Map Reading. . . .
Conclusion . . . .

HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . .

Transitional Differences
Visual Disequilibrium. .
Transformation . . . . .
Gender Differences . . .

METHOD . . . .

Overview . . . . .
Subjects . . . . .
Pilot Study. . . .
Art Lessons. . . .
Room Map Task (RMT)
Stimuli. . . . .
Procedure. . .
School Map Task (SMT)
Scoring. . . . .
Room Map Task (RMT).
School Map Task (SMT)
Experimenters and Raters
Inter-rater Agreement. .
Research Design. . . . .
Ethics . . . . . . . . .

RESULTS I O O O I O O O O 0

Room Map Task. . . . . .
Landmark Accuracy (LA)
Number of Landmarks (NL)

School Map Task (SMT). . .

iv

10
11

13
13

15
16

18

18
18
19
19

20
21
22
23
23
24
24
25
26
26

27

28
28
28
29

CHAPTER 5

Correlational Analysis . . . . .
Further Analysis . . . . . . . .

DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . .

Deve10pmental Transition . . . .
Disequilibrium . . . . . . . . .
Nature of the Variables. . . . .
Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Further Research . . . . . . . .

LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

1
2

ROOM MAP TASK: INSTRUCTIONS AND

SCHOOL MAP TASK: INSTRUCTIONS
AND FORM 0 O C C O O 0 O O O O O

SCORING MASTER FOR NUMBER OF
LANDMARKS(NL).........

DUPLICATE OF TRANSPARENT OVERLAY
LANDMARK ACCURACY SCORING (LA) .

SCORING MASTER FOR SCHOOL MAP
TASK ( SMT) o o o o o o o o o o 0

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SCORING
NL' LA, SMT. o o o o o o o o o o

UCHRIS APPROVAL. . . . . . . . .

30
31

39
39
41
43
44
45
49
55

59

62

63

64

65
66

TABLE AND FIGURE LIST

Table 1. Cell Means (Grade x Gender x Treatment)
LA, NL, and SMR Variables (N = 84). . . .

Table 2. ANOVA for Landmark Accuracy (LA). . . . .
Table 3. ANOVA for Number of Landmarks (NL). . . .
Table 4. ANOVA for School Map Task (SMT) . . . . .

Table 5. Grade by Treatment Cell Means for School
Map Task (SMT). . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 6. Correlations for LA, NL and SMT by
Gender, with Age Partialled Out . . . . .

Figure 1. Graphs of Cell Means, LA, NL and SMT,
Respectively. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Tolman (1948) used the term "cognitive maps" to refer to
the internal representations that both rats and men used to
define and travel in their environments. Today "cognitive
mapping" is a widely used metaphor to represent not only how
spatial knowledge is coded but also how all information is
processed (Kaplan, 1976). It incorporates the fields of
anthropology, planning, education, sociology, philosophy, as
well as psychology and geography. The term "map" must not be
taken too literally for it is used only in the metaphorical
sense and as such these cognitions are not analogous to
cartographic representations (Downs, 1981). Put in another
way, the "world according to Rand McNally" is unlike a cogni-
tive map which is subject to alteration by memory (Acredolo,
Pick & Olsen, 1975), physical experience (Laurendeau & Pinard,
1970), viewer's perspective (Huttenlocher & Presson, 1973),
cognitive style (Gildnmeister & Friedman, 1978), age (Piaget &
Inhelder, 1956), environmental landmarks (Allen, Kirasic,
Siegel & Herman, 1979), socialization (Mugny & Doise, 1978),
and sex related factors (Vandenberg & Kuse, 1979).

Down and Siegel (1981) present an excellent overview of

the varied research in cognitive mapping, done by themselves

1

and colleagues. Their work explores the fundamental question
of whether "maps in the mind" are truly reflective of environ-
mental perceptions, be they represented by models, drawings

or performance on tasks. They caution us to consider care-
fully the a priori assumptions before evaluating the information
and conclusions drawn from the models, drawings or task per-
formances. An important assumption regards the investigator's
attitude towards the numerous difficulties in transforming
individual spatial perceptions into quantifiable and reliable
measures for analysis. Those who emphasize naturalistic vs.
laboratory experiments characteristically seek "richness"
instead of "precision" in data. For example, Hart‘s method
emphasizes uncontrolled, extensive and self determined ex-
periences yielding richness of data, whereas, Siegel's
information processing approach is characterized by experi-
mentally strict methodology yielding precise and parsimonious
explanations. Then there is Downs, who has adopted a middle
ground position, believeing neither approach can adequately
infer the process of organizing the environment. His solution
is to accept the "best" product of spatial organization,
namely map drawings (Downs & Siegel, 1981, p. 247).

Downs (1981) emphasizes his preference for using map
drawings as the vehicle for data collection because it
represents a bridge between "competence"--perceiving the
environment and successfully moving about it, and "performance"--
perceiving the environment and portraying it. Just as walking

to and from school by the child represents the problem and

solution of locomotion, likewise the map represents the
problem and solution of spatial representation. Thus, the
"map is a creative device for solving a particular problem,
more akin to a plan of action than an inventory of what is
known" (p. 162). Downs' methodology is emphasized here since
the present investigation relies on data derived from map
drawing tasks.

Additionally, there is a steadily growing emphasis in the
developmental literature (see Cohen, 1982; Baird & Merrill,
1978; Acredolo, 1976) on macrospatial cognitive mapping
(viewer encompassing space) as against microspatial mapping
(e.g. Piaget's three-mountain task or model village mapping)
Geographic information is of crucial importance across all
cultures both phylo- and onto-genetically (consider primitive
man's hunt for food and getting to and from work in the modern
world), and may represent a viable developmental and mecha-
nistic model for other cognitive processes (Siegel & White,
1975; Acredolo et a1, 1975).

There are numerous studies of children's spatial abilities,
most of which owe their origin to the work of Piaget and
Inhelder (1956). Typically these studies show developmental
differences according to the stages proprosed by these theorists.
Until recently, the mechanism of stage transitions has not been
investigated. One such study, concerning the transition from
concrete to formal Operations, was undertaken by Snyder and
Feldman (1977). They analyzed the map drawings of 11 year olds

and found evidence for a gradual stage transition involving

various levels of task-specific maturation. The mapping
tasks involved the traditional Piagetian model village and
not macrospace, and therefore the results may not be gen-
eralizable to real life mobility. Also, come critics (e.g.
Marmor, 1975) warn of potential confounds in quantifying
drawings since subjective interpretations are involved.
However, Howard, Chase and Rothman (1973) demonstrated that
distance estimation by methods of 1) representation, i.e.
maps, 2) modeling, 3) absolute judgements, and 4) ratio
estimation yielded equally valid data.

In the development of children's spatial abilities, Piaget
and Inhelder (1956) reported significant achievements during
the transition from the preoperational to the concrete Opera-
tional stage. They described improved map drawing skills as
evidenced by a decrease in topological feature-making con-
comitant with the appearance of simple projective and Euclidian
strategies which necessitate the coordination of multiple
perspectives. Typically the map drawings of "transitioning"
children do not resemble more SOphisticated cartographic maps,
since their drawing skills are crude and extraneous details
relevant for storytelling, are often included at the expense
of absent critical landmarks. However, closer scrutiny of
these maps reveals developmental patterns similar to those
seen in non-drawing spatial tasks, such as perspective taking
(Huttenlocher, 1973); model representation (Siegel & Schadler,
1977), mental rotation (Marmor, 1975; Arnold, 1978), locative

memory (Shannon, 1978; Siegel, Allik & Herman, 1976), distance

estimation (Cohen & Weatherford 1980) and route taking (Hazen,
Lockman & Pick, 1978). Each of these can be studied in
children's drawings and their transition from pre-Operational
to Operational quality can be charted thereby. This study
will investigate the nature of the transition from pre-
operations to concrete Operations as seen in the map drawings
of a familiar classroom and the decoding of a map of the school

executed by six- through nine—year-Old students.

Stage Differences

Specifically, the development from topological to
projective representations will be examined as characteristic
of this transition. The term tOpOlogical refers here to a
reliance on Objects; i.e. landmarks, as features for map-
making. This limitation is evident in the map drawings of
pre-Operational children, which often lack logical spatial
relationships beween Objects, that is, distance and position
relationships. On the other hand, projective mapping skills
begin emerging at the concrete Operational stage. Unlike
the earlier topological map, the projective map coordinates
landmarks by means of logical directional and distal inter-
relationships in a roughly accurate fashion (Laurendeau &
Pinard, 1970). Both Mitchell (1963) and Rushdoony (1968)
further describe this process in their taxonomies for the
teaching of map skills as part of geography curricula for

elementary school.

Another characteristic Of preoperational maps is the
reliance on a single viewpoint (SVP) as representative of an
encompassing environment. For example, when asked to draw a
map of a familiar room,tflu3young child will often only draw
a wall or two walls joined by a corner to represent its
entirety. This phenomenon has been explained by Piaget and
Inhelder (1956) as a function Of the pre0perational child's
egocentrism, that is, his/her inability to imagine views other
than his/her own. In contrast, the concrete operational
child, according to Piaget, is capable of roughly organizing
multiple vieWpOints (MVP) of the environment by integrating
them into a SVP (visually, a bird's eye view); the concrete
operational child can then project this information onto paper
or a model. It should be noted that this projective map does
not yet possess all the features of the familiar cartographic
map, which includes accurate scaling, landmark proportions
and symbolism that ranges from simple legends to distance and
time estimations. Such a map is produced no earlier than the
formal operations stage (usually not reached until adolescence)
and, not surprisingly, is Often called a Euclidian map.

Since projective mapping requires MVP's, it is incompatible
with egocentric thinking. On the other hand, allocentrism
refers to non-egocentric thinking. This ability to coordinate
perspectives other than one's own is essential to advanced
mapmaking. Harris (1977) argues convincingly that a simple
egocentric-preoperational vs. allocentric-concrete operational

model is insufficient to analyze the various types of

perspective taking problems. He contends that there exists

a gradual coordination of egocentrism and allocentrism or to
put it another way, an integration of numerous self-
orientations with predominantly stationary environmental
landmarks. A study by Harris and Bassett (1976) posits that
egocentric errors need not be interpreted as proof of the
child's lack of awareness of perspective changes, but rather
as proof of his/her awareness of the invariance of the
relation between a display and adjacent landmarks despite
movement of the observer. This interpretation fits nicely
into Flavell's (1971) concepts of concurrence, evocation and
utilization. Concurrence means that various items within a
given stage develop concurrently, i.e., in synchrony with one
another. Evocation and utilization refer to levels of a
"cognitive unveiling process". Evocation is the awareness of
relevant problem solving strategies; utilization is the
ability to take the previously evoked strategies and apply
them to the actual problem solving process. Borrowing from
the psycholinguists, cognitive mappers use the terms "com-
petence" and "performance" interchangebly with evocation and
utilization, respectively (Siege1&White, 1975). For example,
Stea (1976) differentiates between knowing the spatial environ-
ment in the sense of location and traveling, and knowing, in
the sense of constructing and representing the environment.
Or, more specifically, a study by Marmor (1975) has shown
that five-year-old children do evoke mental imagery when

solving mental rotation problems. This contradicts Piaget

and Inhelder's (1956) earlier studies which posit that

only children seven years Old or Older are capable of kinetic
imagery. Thus Piaget and Inhelder may have observed the
successful "performance" of latent "competencies." Such
discrepanices do not weaken Piaget and Inhelder's essential
paradigm for the development of spatial abilities, rather,
they prod researchers to further distinctions between age of

"competence" and age of "performance."

Disequilibrium

According to Flavell's (1977) interpretation of Piaget,
the mechanism by which the child learns is a process of
assimilation and accomodation through which he continuously
assesses existing knowledge modified by newer perceptions.
Disequilibrium occurs when such perceptions are incompatible
with pre-existing knowledge. The child either maintains the
same ideas, thus rejecting the new perceptions or vice versa,
and in some instances recognizes the possible exception to
his/her repertoire of rules, thereby creating a new category.
For the develOping child this process causes his/her knowledge
to be in a state of flux, that is, constantly being tested,
modified and codified. With respect to the acquisition of
perspective taking abilities, Cox's (1978) work gives support
for Piaget and Inhelder's (1956) stages of development.
Briefly, Piaget and Inhelder describe three sequential steps:
at first the young child can correctly represent only the

location of the object nearest another Observer; later, he

can correctly represent a before-behind relationship
between Objects as seen by another Observer; lastly, he is
able to represent a left-right relationship between Objects
as seentnranother observer (p. 421).

On the other hand, Cox (1977) trained five-year-Old
children to perform Piaget's famous "three—mountain task"
as well as normal ten-cureleven-year—Olds. He found that
providing either visual or verbal cues from another per—
spective (experimenter's view which was Opposite the child's
position) was equally effective in producing the results.

This is contrary to Piaget and Inhelder's notion that the
most effective way to acquire perspective taking ability is
through occupation of another position.

An explanation for this discrepancy is posited by Siegel
and White (1975); they affirm the crucial effect of experience
for acquiring spatial knowledge but also demonstrate that it
is inextricably intertwined with visual information processing.
"Although spatial representations arise and jell out of
practical activity, that which is "jelled" has a massive visual
component in normally visually sighted individuals." (p. 38)

As mentioned earlier, Snyder and Feldman (1977) have also
posited that such a disequilibrium process accounts for the
transitioning from concrete to formal Operations by eleven
year olds. Feldman and Acredolo (1979) further elaborate thi
point in a study that shows self-directed activity serves to
increase the attention of preOperational children, due to

their knowledge of projective space; they demonstrate

10

increased capacity to encode spatial information regardless
of mode of exploration.

The preceding discussion demonstrates the need for an
elaboration of long held spatial theories, most notably those
of Piaget. On the other hand, disequilibrium or conceptual
conflict, a fundamental tenet of both Piaget's theory of
cognitive development and Berlyne's neo-associationist account
of the dynamics of problem-solving, seems to be the accepted
mechanism. Likewise, Cox (1977) considered his training as
visually or verbally inducing a state of disequilibrium which

consequently allowed for his subjects' precocious performances.

Map Reading

The transition from topological to projective mapping can
be further elucidated by digressing to the related process of
map reading. Bluestein and Acredolo (1979) have discerned two
processes in the ability to read maps. The first is "semantic
interpretation" (Blaut, McCleary and Blaut, 1970; Erreich &
Valian, 1979) in which there is an understanding that two
dimensional pictographs refer to "real life", three-dimensional
counterparts. The second process is the ability to project
or superimpose the drawn map on an environmental space. For
example, Blaut et al's (1970) study demonstrated that first
graders from an American and a Puerto Rican school were able
to 1) interpret aerial photographs, 2) identify landmarks,
and 3) plan routes, all of which are evidence of semantic

interpreting. Despite this ability, few students were able

11

to replicate the aerial photographs by means of map drawing.
Thus, map reading is not the same as map drawing. The form-
er is necessary, but not sufficient for the latter (Catling,
1978). Willats (1977), in an elegant study of 5-17 year-Old
children's perspective drawing abilities, demonstrated that
projective drawing systems do not appear until 8 years of
age. This finding lends support for Flavell's (1971) concept
of evocation and utilization, that is, map reading experi-
ments tap the existence of (evoked) projective abilities

in preoperational children, but are not representationally
"utilizable" until a later time.

Thus, "semantic interpretation" is equatable to recognizing
landmark representations in maps and clearly precedes projec-
tion or superimposition skills. Furthermore, these two
processes fall roughly into the preoperational and concrete
Operational stages, respectively. The mechanism for this

transition is the concern of this research.

Conclusion

Cognitive mapping has importance for a wide range of
disciplines, at both theoretical and applied levels. Presently
spatial theories are being tested and applied in real life
situations; that is, cognitive mappers have themselves tran-
sitioned from micro- to macro-space. Developmental substrates
underlie all spatial theories. Thus, acquisition of spatial
cognition is thought to have a logical ontogenesis and there-

fore be capable of being deciphered. Such illuminations of

12

spatial cognition are doubly important--initially, as an
integral segment of our conceptalization Of human develop-
ment and, maybe more importantly, as a model for all

cognitive processing.

Chapter 2

HYPOTHESES

Transitional Differences

Based on the work of Piaget and Inhelder (1956) and
Laurendeau and Pinard (1970), this research will further
elucidate the developmental transition in the macrospatial
representations of six- through nine-year-olds. Specifically,
students will complete a Room Map Task (RMT) generating maps
of a familiar art room which will be analyzed for two vari-
ables: 1) number of landmarks (NL) and 2) accuracy of landmark
location (LA). The former should reflect the tOpographic
skills which appear during the preoperational period and be-
yond, while the latter is a function of "MVP's" and projective
abilities, which typically first manifest themselves during
the stage of concrete Operations. Thus higher scores on the
LA variable would signify a transition, whereas the NL variable
would not. Laurendeau and Pinard (1970) postulated that the
number of landmarks needed for routing is inversely related to
one's knowledge of projective and Euclidian concepts. As one
grows Older, landmark dependency lessens as one develOps more
sophisticated routing systems. Pragmatically restated, this
coincides with Gatty's and Lewis' (cited in Downs, 1981)

similar notion that there exist at least two kinds of

13

l4

navigational systems: 1) home centered and 2) compass
centered. The former is landmark dependent, simple-minded

and practical, whereas the latter is astronomically derived,
independent Of landmarks (save oneself) but riskier. Thus,
the two systems are analogous to tOpological versus projected
systems and should serve to distinguish between preoperational

and concrete Operational children. Therefore, Hypothesis 1

 

states: "Older age groups will position landmarks (LA) more
accurately than younger age groups, irrespective of differences

in number of landmarks portrayed (NL)."

Visual Disequilibrium

Piaget and Inhelder (1956), and Laurendeau & Pinard
(1970) posited that personal experience is the necessary
ingredient for the accumulation of spatial knowledge. This
notion is further supported by Huttenlocher and Presson's
study (1973, 1979), in which subjects' movement was found
to enhance perspective-taking abilities. It should be noted
that Cox (1977) found that verbal and visual cues alone from
another perspective were equally sufficient inducements for
better performance. To resolve this discrepancy, the six-
through nine-year-Olders were equally divided into experimental
and control groups prior to the art room map task and these
groups were administered separate slide presentations. The
experimental group were shown "aerial view" slides of their
art room while the control group were shown eye-level view

slides of the same art room. The former should present new

15

information (assuming no child had been previously elevated

to the ceiling) possibly inducing a state of disequilibrium,
whereas the latter, presenting no new information, is expected
to induce no change. If Cox (1977) is correct, then the

experimental group should produce better maps. Hypothesis 2

 

states: "Novel, vicariously experienced visual cues (aerial
views) are sufficient to produce a state of disequilibrium
which will result in significantly better LA scores for the
experimental children as Opposed to their control counterparts."
It is also anticipated that the "transitioned" (concrete
Operational) children will show a greater effect of "landmark
positioning" than non-transitioned (pre-operational) children.
This is based on the extensive studies of Laurendeau and
Pinard (1970), and Moore (1976), which demonstrated that seven-
year-old children show a marked decrease in their use of
tOpOlogical strategies coinciding with an increased use of
projective and Euclidian strategies. Thus, Hypothesis 3
states: "There will be a significant interaction between

grade and treatment conditions for all scores."

Transformation
In a second task given, the School Map Task (SMT), the
students were asked to locate certain rooms on a scaled,
aerial outline of the entire school. This task tested the
subjects' ability to orient themselves mentally within the
larger, familiar school environment. Such a task involves

memory of the array of travelled routes and landmarks, that

16

is, the ability to project a cognitive map onto a two
dimensional surface. It can be argued (following Kaplan,
1976; Downs & Siegel, 1981) that the Room Map Task (RMT)
and the School Map Task (SMT) represent two different
tasks of which the latter is more important because of its
scope and functional necessity. However, individual dif-
ferences in the two skills should be associated. It was
expected that, in general, children who scored high in the
Room Map Task (RMT) would also score higher on this task,

and vice versa. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 states: "The NL

 

and LA scores will significantly and positively correlate
with the SMT scores."

It was also predicted that group effects on the RMT
would be reflected on the SMT, that is that the experimental
and control groups would differ on the SMT. In other words,
performance on the previous task should transfer to this

task. Thus Hypothesis 2a states "The effect stated in

 

Hypothesis 2 will transfer to the SMT, resulting in higher

scores for the experimental group.

Gender Differences
Consistently better performance by males in spatial tasks
has been reported by Liben and Golbeck (1980); Signorella and
Jamison (1978); and Macoby and Jacklin (1974). However, these
gender differences have seldom been found before the age of
nine years, with maximal differences appearing at adolescence

(Harris, 1977). For example, no gender differences were found

17

in tasks involving coordination of perspectives (Fishbein,
Lewis & Keiffer, 1972) or in tasks involving memory for
environmental location (Acredolo et al.,1975; Hazen et al.,
1978; Kosslyn, Pick & Fariellos, 1974) or small environments
(Fehr & Fishbein, 1976). However, a recent study in our
laboratory (Ferguson, Note 1) found differences between male
and female kindergarten children on a psychometric measure of
spatial ability based on mazes and block design from the
WPPSI, and the Embedded Figures Test. The latter has Often
been considered a measure of field dependence and the former
two probably involve mental rotation and simple "map reading."
Likewise, Siegel and Schadler (1977) reported significant
gender differences in favor of males for their study involving
five year olders' ability to reconstruct their classroom using
scaled "dollhouse" miniatures. They explained their findings
as a function of task load, that is, previous experiments
that had found no gender differences were simple as compared
to this complex test of spatial memory. Consequently, their
task "overloaded" the lesser spatial abilities of the girls.
The task involved in the present investigation is similar
to Siegel and Schadler‘s (1977), with the exception that
drawing replaces their model manipulations. Based on the

preceding discussion, Hypothesis 5 states: "Males will

 

perform better than females on all tasks."

Chapter 3

METHOD

Overview

First, second and third grade students participated in
this experiment. Each grade was divided into experimental
and control groups. A slide presentation appropriate to the
experimental or control condition was administered to the
respective groups. Afterwards they were asked to draw a map
of the art room-~Room Map Task (RMT). A week later, the
students were asked to do another task, this time mapping the
school--School Map Task (SMT).

Both maps were analyzed for 1) developmental differences
as indications of transitions from preoperational to concrete
Operations, 2) disequilibrium as induced by the experimental

manipulations as cause for transition, and 3) gender differences.

Subjects
Forty-nine first graders, 42 second graders and 45 third
graders from a local elementary school in a suburb near
Michigan State University participated in this experiment.
Mean ages for the eighty-four first, second and third graders
were 6-8, 7-8 and 8-8, respectively. From this group, fourteen

males and fourteen females were randomly selected from each

18

19

grade and distributed equally into experimental and control
groups with each cell consisting of seven subjects. Thus, 84
student's maps were actually analyzed while all 136 students
participated. This was done to account for attrition between
testing sessions and so that no students would feel ostracized.
The children were predominately Caucasian, with a few minority
group members. There was no indication of any severe student

difficulties either intellectually or behaviorally.

Pilot Study

Room maps were drawn by fifteen children ranging in age
from 5-1 to 8-1 years at another elementary school within the
Michigan State University area one month prior to the start of
this experiment. It is unlikely that these children would have
discussed the task with the other students or that such
potential discussion would matter since there are no correct
ways to draw a map and the rooms are different. The results
Of this pilot study suggested 1) administering the tasks to
no more than twelve students at a time, 2) providing a "frame
of walls" on each paper, and 3) incorporating a "get acquaint-
ed"art;lesson. All of these precautions were subsequently

utilized.

Art Lessons
Prior to the experiment, every classroom received an art
lesson from the investigator, who is a certified art teacher.

This was thought necessary in order to familiarize the children

20

with the investigator and to elicit their best performance
for the actual experiment. As a result, the investigator
gained insight into the most comfortable working conditions
for the children while in the art room. Moreover, the art
lessons were considered reimbursement for the use of the
school facilities and actually fostered closer cooperation
with the six classroom teachers and the principal. It should
be noted that the art lessons did not pertain to map making

skills in any way.

Room Map Task (RMT)
Stimuli

The RMT slides were projected via a standard Kodak Carousel
Projector (Model 760 H) with a F 2.8, 135 mm lens onto a five
by five foot projection screen in the art room.

The control slides were shot from the center of the art
room with the camera at a height of 50 inches and the focal
plane parallel to the walls. Ten slides, each encompassing 38
degrees of the rotated view were taken. A slight overlap
occurred between slides for continuity of the viewer's "rota-
tion." A Pentax K-1000 camera with 50 mm lens set at £22
for maximum depth of field was used. The same conditions
existed for the set of experimental slides except that the
camera was elevated to the height of 10 feet, shooting down-
wards at a focal plane angle of 45 degrees to the ceiling
and the walls. Thus, this set of ten slides shows a bird's

eye view of the art room--a view which could not have been

21

physically experienced by the students. Herein the former

will be called the "placebo" slide set since no new information
is conveyed to the students, and the latter, the "disequilbrium"
slides, since the view, which they could not have seen before,

should augment their cognitive maps.

Procedure

After each control and experimental group was exposed to
their respective placebo or disequilibrium slide set, each
child was asked to draw a map of the art room while in it.

This was done to insure that memory distortions would not

 

interfere with the map drawing as well as to Observe how
well the student could integrate surrounding information.
While all children remained at a table, they were allowed

to change places at the tables as their views dictated. In
an effort to lessen noise and confusion as well as to remove
difficult-to-draw items, all chairs were removed. (In the
previous pilot study many students spent inordinate amounts
of time drawing detailed pictures of single Objects rather
than the entire room.)

Only pencils and "incomplete maps" were necessary for the
students to manipulate. Maps were drawn on an 8% x 11 inch
sheets depicting the four walls in scale with a significant
landmark on each wall (Appendix 1). These precuations were
necessary to avoid paper rotation miscues (evidenced by the
pilot study) and to provide a "landmark" for orientation.
Directions were given to "map the entire room and to include

landmarks which help you to get around in the art room" (see

22

Procedures). The map drawings were collected, coded and
scored for number of landmarks (NL) and accuracy of placement
of landmarks (LA) (see Scoring).

Each grade consisted Of two classrooms and each classroom
was randomly divided into experimental and control groups.
Thus, there were four individually tested groups for each
grade. Each entire grade was tested the same day to minimize
collusion between grades, using a counter-balanced design
(half experimental and half control groups in the morning,
other halves in the afternoon). Classroom teachers were not
aware of the treatment status of their students. Each test-
ing session was run by an undergraduate assistant and the
investigator. Detailed instructions for the RMT administration

are provided in Appendix 1.

School Map Task (SMT)

This second task was given to the students a week after
the last group of students were given the RMT. The SMT was
administered to entire classrooms since it only involved
reading a set of 15 location questions by the investigator to
which the students responded to by writing a number on an
outline of the school to indicate their concept of familiar
school locations. Detailed instructions for SMT administration

are provided in Appendix 2.

23

Scoring
Room Map Task (RMT)

A schematic diagram of the layout of items in the art
classroom is presented in Appendix 3. Children's perform-
ances are scored in two different ways, the first reflecting
number of landmarks (NL) and the second, accurate projection
of existing landmarks (LA) from cognitive maps to paper. A
description follows:

NL Score: This measure depends only on the number Of
existing items drawn, irrespective of position in the art
room or perspective, e.g., from ground level to aerial view.
One point is given for each correct item with 29 as the
highest attainable score, that is, inclusion of all 29
numbered items (Appendix 3).

LA Score: This measure is designed to reflect the
accuracy of the item drawn with respect to that item's posi-
tion in the art room. Only items 21 through 29 (all tables)
were used to calculate this score. Appendix 4 duplicates a
clear overlay representing these 9 items. Centers for each
of the target items for every child's map were found by the
method of intercepting diagonals from the opposing corners.
The dotted sections within each item represent a target area
of highest accuracy. These sections are one-third the table's
total area and centrally located. If the center of the drawn
table fell within this corresponding area then 5 points were
scored. Should these centers fall within the item's outline

then 4 points were scored; in the case of the center falling

24

outside of either target area but the drawing partially
overlapping it, 1 point was scored for inclusion or inter-
section of any side by the drawing for a score ranging from 1
to 3. A maximum score of 45 points was possible. (More

detailed directions are provided in Appendix 6.)

School Map Task (SMT)

This task was scored simply by comparing the student's
maps with a master score sheet (Appendix 5). All answers
(numbers) were the same for each class except for question
one which required an "X" placed in the individual's regular
classroom. These were socred individually for each class-
room. Scores ranged from 1 to 14, with 14 representing a

perfect score.

Experimenters and Raters

A total of eight experimenters, including the investigator,
worked with the children. Six of the experimenters previously
served as student art teachers at this elementary school. One
was assigned to each classroom to help administer and monitor
both tasks. As previously mentioned, the investigator had
already introduced himself via art lessons given one month
earlier. The remaining two experimenters were undergraduate
art therapy students, one known and the other unknown to the
students. Together they alternated assisting the principal
investigator presenting tasks to the classes. The presenta-
tion and monitoring procedure for the task were rehearsed by

all before the actual experiment.

25

Inter-rater Agreement

Six scorers attended a four hour training session during
which they were given: 1) scoring instructions (Appendix 6,
2) six RMT practice maps--two from each grade, and 3) three
SMT practice maps. (The practice maps were actual student
maps selected out because of the particular student's absence
from either RMT or SMT administration.) Virtually perfect
inter-rater agreement was achieved for the SMT scoring since
the addition of correct answers required no interpretation.
NL was similarly easy to score, the raters having only to
count the number of Objects portrayed in the room. It should
be noted that every object was scored regardless of its
position. Initially some student's drawings of extraneous
objects caused confusion for the scorers. For example, two
clotheslines for hanging wet paintings, venetian blinds, and
a pencil sharpener were often included by the students. The
experimenters who were familiar with the depiction of these
objects (otherwise unrecognizable because of the student's
lack of drawing skill) instructed the scorers to disregard
these extraneous objects in an attempt to decrease scoring
error. Subsequently a 93% inter-rater agreement was reached
for the NL score. Scoring for LA was the most difficult
procedure because of the elaborate scoring protocol. After
careful practice,an1inter-rater agreement of 85% was achieved
based on the practice maps.

Three teams of two raters each were randomly assigned

drawings. Each member of the team scored all the drawings

26

assigned to that team. Two weeks later, after double scoring
every drawing, we met to discuss any scoring discrepancies.
Only eight of 119 drawings were in dispute. For these,
consensus judgements were arrived at by the investigator and

the two co-experimenters.

Research Design

Of the 136 first, second and third grade students who
participated, 84 were randomly selected to fill 12 cells of 7
students each. Each cell was matched for grade, gender and
treatment. The dependent variables of NL, LA and SMT were
analyzed separately using a 3(grade) x 2(gender) x 2(treatment:
disequilibrium vs. placebo slides) ANOVA with additional post
hoc analyses of significant interactions and correlations
between tasks. All tests of significance were two-tailed,

unless otherwise noted.

Ethics
A preliminary prOposal submitted to the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects indicating the
purpose, procedures and safeguards for this research was
reviewed and formally approved on November 24, 1981 (see

Appendix 7).

Chapter 4

RESULTS

Each dependent variable: LA, NL, and SMT was analyzed

in conjunction with the appropriate hypotheses. In order to

facilitate the reading Of this chapter, the hypotheses are

restated below.

H1.

H2.

H2a.

H3.

H4.

H5.

Older age groups will position landmarks (LA)

more accurately than younger age groups,
irrespective of differences in number of

landmarks portrayed (NL).

Novel, vicariously experienced visual cues (aerial
views) are sufficient to produce a state of
disequilibrium which will result in significantly
better LA scores for the experimental children as
Opposed to their control counterparts.

The effect stated in Hypothesis 2 will transfer to
the SMT, resulting in higher scores for the
experimental group.

There will be a significant interaction between
grade and treatment conditions for all scores.

The NL and LA scores will significantly and
positively correlate with the SMT scores.

Males will perform better than females on all tasks.

27

28

The mean scores for each measure in each condition,
presented separately by grade and gender, are shown in
Table l and graphed in Figure 1. Effects of these inde-
pendent variables on each measure were tested by means Of
3-way ANOVAS (grade x gender x treatment) and correlations.
(All tests Of significance are two-tailed unless otherwise

noted.)

Room Map Task
Landmark Accuracy (LA)

A significant main effect for grade was found, F(2, 72) =
8.72, p < .001 (Table 2). Third graders did significantly
better than second graders (t = 2.12, p < .05) who in turn
did better than first graders (t = 2.00, p < .05), thus H1
was supported. A significant gender effect, reflecting better
performance by males, was also evident, F(1, 72) = 3.66,

p < .05 (one-tailed), which gave support to H5. However, the
experimental group did not perform significantly better than
the control group as predicted in H2 and H3. In fact, an eta-
squared analysis revealed that significant amounts of the
variances were accounted for by grade and gender (42% and 19%,

respectively), whereas treatment contributed very little (4%).

Number of Landmarks (NL)

This ANOVA (Table 3) yielded highly significant main
effects for grade and gender, and a significant two-way
interaction between grade and gender (F(2, 72) = 3.40,

p < .05), with males depicting more landmarks than females

29

at every grade. While females showed steady increases with
age, the males leveled Off at the third grade; differences
between boys and girls in the first and second grades were
significant (t = 4.53, p < .001 and t = 3.06, p F .01,
respectively) but not at the third grade. Data from this
measure supported H5. A significant three-way interaction
(grade x gender x treatment) was also found, F(2, 72) = 2.58,
p < .05 (one tailed), which gave support for H2 and partial
support for H3. Treatment enhanced all third graders and
second grade boys' performance while decreasing performance
for all others. Most Of the variance was accounted for by
grade and gender effects while treatment effects were rather

small (eta-square analysis: 44%, 39% and 3%, respectively).

School Map Task (SMT)

The ANOVA (Table 4) yielded a significant main effect for
grade, F(2, 72) = 11.33, p < .001. This was similar to results
found for LA, namely each successive grade performed signifi-
cantly better than the previous grade: first graders vs.
second graders (t = 2.02, p < .05) and second graders vs. third
graders (t = 2.33, p < .05). Thus, H1 was supported with in-
dications that the two tasks may reflect the same developmental
process.

A significant main effect for gender, F(1, 72) a 10.78,

p < .01, was evident as well as a significant interaction

between gender and treatment, F(1, 72) = 4.00, p < .05. Thus,

30

H6 was supported with partial support for H2. H2a was not
supported since there was no main effect for treatment.

A significant grade by treatment effect was also evident
(F(2, 72) = 2.55, p < .05, one tailed) with the experimental
second and third graders doing better than their control
counterparts. A reverse trend was evident for the first
graders (Table 5). Thus, H3 was supported.

Finally, most Of the variances were attributed to by grade
and gender effects while treatment effects again were rather

small (eta-square analysis: 44%, 30% and 2% respectively).

Correlational Analysis
Correlations between SMT and NL (r = .53, p < .001),
between SMT and LA (r = .46, p < .001), and between NL and LA
(r = .67, p < .001) were all found to be significant. To
explore the inter-relationships of these measures, correla-
tions were also performed in which LA, NL and SMT were

systematically partialled out and yielded: SMT with NL

(r .34, p < .01); SMT with LA (r = .17, ns; and LA with NL
(r = .57, p < .01). This demonstrated that of the two RMT
variables; NL and LA, NL demonstrated a greater relationship
to SMT than LA.

A further series of partial correlations was performed.
The correlation between LA and Age (in months) (r - .41,
p < .001) substantially decreased when NL was partialled out,

r = .24, p < .05. On the other hand, the correlation between

NL and Age (r = .36, p < .001) increased slightly when LA was

31

partialled out, r = .39, p < .05. Thus, both the NL and LA
variables were significantly correlated with age, and NL
accounted for substantial portions of the variance.

Next partial correlations were computed separately for
each Gender with Age partialled out. The results are pre-
sented in Table 6. They indicated that, the NL, LA and SMT
variables were all significantly correlated for boys, where—
as only the RMT variables (NL and LA) were significantly
correlated for girls. In other words, the map reading scores
(SMT) clearly discriminated between girls' and boys' map
drawing scores (NL and LA). This helps to explain the nature

of the previously found gender differences.

Further Analysis

A comparison Of the grade by gender by treatment cell
means for LA, NL and SMT highlight this study's trends
(Table 1, Figure 1). Females, except in two cases (LA,
third grade, control; SMT second grade, control) scored
lower than males for all grades and treatments. For all
tasks, females in the experimental group scored lower than
their control counterparts for all tasks in the first and
second grades with the reverse occurring in the third grade.
Experimental males scored lower than their control counter-
parts for all tasks in the first grade and only in LA at the
second grade. Otherwise, the males in the experimental group
outscored their control counterparts. Thus the experimental

treatment seemed to interfere with performance among the

32

youngest children (especially first-grade girls), but to
enhance performance with increasing age (by second grade

for boys and by third grade for girls).

33

Table 1. Cell Means (Grade x Gender x Treatment) LA, NL,
and SMR Variables (N = 84)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LA
Control Experimental
Grade Females Males Females Males
1 4.14 11.00 4.43 7.29
2 10.14 14.57 7.71 11.29
3 14.29 12.14 14.86 16.86
NL
l 6.57 13.71 6.57 12.00
2 12.86 15.14 7.57 19.00
3 14.57 15.14 16.71 18.00
SMT
l 6.00 8.43 3.00 7.29
2 8.14 7.43 6.29 10.14
3 8.86 9.57 9.57 11.43

 

34

mpmuu

.>Hm>wuommmmu .BZm cam qz

 

92m

mOHmE Hmucmsflummxm
wOHmEmm HoucmEflummxm
mmamE Houucou
mmamsmm Houucou

 

 

I I l
N
0-!

ollllo
03......
I
O.......O

mnmuo

N

b

m
r

 

AZ

.fiq .mcmmz HHOU mo magnum .H wusmflm

momma

H m N
p O . .

bt-l

 

l
m

-m
,3
.2
-3
-2
r:
-3
.3
.S
f:

 

 

 

v1 IO; sexoos ueew

Table 2.

35

ANOVA for Landmark Accuracy (LA)

 

 

 

Sum Of Mean
Source of Variation Squares DF Square F
Main Effects
Grade 858.167 2 429.083 8.719***
Gender 180.107 1 180.107 3.660*+
Treatment 8.679 1 8.679 .176
2-Way Interactions
Grade x Gender 97.071 2 48.536 .986
Grade x Treatment 117.929 2 58.964 1.198
Gender x Treatment .298 1 .298 .006
3-Way Interactions
Grade x Gender x Treatment 59.024 2 29.512 .600
Error 3543.429 72 49.214
Total 4864.702 83 58.611

 

*Significant at the .05 level

***Significant at the .001 level

+One-tailed test

36

Table 3. ANOVA for Number of Landmarks (NL)

 

 

 

Sum of Mean
Source of Variation Squares DF Square E
Main Effects
Grade 582.167 2 291.083 13.212***
Gender 462.012 1 462.012 20.970***
Treatment 2.012 1 2.012 .091
2-Way Interactions
Grade x Gender 149.738 2 74.869 3.398*
Grade x Treatment 50.452 2 25.226 1.145
Gender x Treatment 38.679 1 38.679 1.756

3-Way Interactions

Grade x Gender x Treatment 113.643 2 56.821 2.579*+
Error 1586.286 72 22.032
Total 2984.988 83 35.964

 

*Significant at the .05 level
***Significant at the .001 level

+One-tailed test

37

Table 4. ANOVA for School Map Task (SMT)

 

 

 

Sum of Mean
Source of Variation Squares DF Square
Main Effects
Grade 189.452 2 94.726 ll.329***
Gender 90.197 1 90.107 10.777**
Treatment .298 1 .298 .036
2-Way Interactions
Grade x Gender 17.643 2 8.821 1.055
Grade x Treatment 42.595 2 21.298 2.547‘“+
Gender x Treatment 33.440 1 33.440 4.000*
3-Way Interactions
Grade x Gender x Treatment 11.452 2 5.726 .685
Error 602.000 72 8.361
Total 986.988 83 11.891

 

*Significant at the .05 level
**Significant at the .01 level
***Significant at the .001 level

+One-tailed test

38

Table 5. Grade by Treatment Cell Means for School Map

 

 

 

Task (SMT)
Grade Control Experimental
1 7.21 5.14
2 7.79 8.21
3 9.21 10.50

 

N = 14 for all cells

Table 6. Correlations for LA, NL and SMT by Gender, with
Age Partialled Out

 

 

 

Boys Girls
NL x SMT .52*** .18
LA x SMT .45** .07
NL x LA .55*** .69***

 

**Significant at .01 level

***Significant at .001 level

Chapter 5

DISCUSSION

The present investigation strongly supported a
developmental acquisition of spatial abilities as postulated
by Piaget and Inhelder (1956). Also there existed evidence
that a cognitive shift or transition occurs within this age
period as predicted by Piaget. Some evidence was found that
the disequilibrium slide treatment interfered with perfor-
mance on map drawing (RMT) and enhanced performance on map
reading (SMT). Strong evidence for gender differences were
found for all tasks, indicating that complex spatial abilities
tasks are more difficult for girls than for boys. These find-
ings confirm the few earlier reports of gender differences

for this age group.

Developmental Transition
The results supporting Hypothesis 1 indicated that
increasing spatial abilities are a function of development.
There was some evidence for a preoperations to concrete-
operations transition when the LA and NL scores were compared.
In contrast to the increasing LA scores, the NL scores were
not significantly different for boys at all grades, nor

between second and third grade girls. By third grade both

39

40

genders showed a roughly equal ability to enumerate landmarks
(NL) and accurately locate the (LA). Thus, landmark enumera-
tion (NL) and landmark accuracy leveled—off at the third
grade. Such a process would be characteristic of a decreasing
reliance on simple routing systems based primarily on land-
marks or SVP's, as the child acquires more sophisticated
routing systems, incorporating MVP's and Euclidian geometry.
These results were consistent with the original findings
of Piaget and Inhelder (1956) and Laurendeau and Pinard (1970)
using microspatial tasks. More recent macrospatial studies
with children of similar ages have found equivalent results
while focusing on the underlying mechanisms. For example,
Kirasic (personal communication, Note 2) found that young
children's performance leveled-Off at the third grade when
she tested first through sixth grade students' ability to
navigate a large-scale maze. Acredolo et a1 (1975) attributed
better performance on route knowledge by eight year Olds vs
preschoolers to their increased memory capacity. Herman and
Siegel (1978) concluded that repeated practice was responsible
for second graders' better performance on a model reconstruc-
tion task when compared to kindergarteners' performance.
Watkin and Schadler (1978) explained the increasingly better
performance with age (first, second and third graders) on a
model zoo reconstruction task as a function of the ability to
incorporate a mnemonic strategy which enhanced memory through
repetition. One concludes that the acquisition of spatial

abilities either micro- or macrospatially is a function Of age

41

and more dependent on general cognitive develOpment than the

specific task.

Disequilibrium

As for the question of disequilibrium, Hypotheses 2 and
Hypothesis 3 were not born out by the RMT variables (LA, NL)
and only partially for the SMT, where treatment interacted
with gender. The MST task which was given a week later showed
trends for the treatment to be effective, both to interfere
with and to enhance performance. While the control girls and
boys were not significantly different at any grade level on
this task, the directions of the mean differences suggest
that the experimental condition caused the first and second
grade girls to perform worse and the second and third grade
boys to perform better. Thus, the treatment may have been
interfering for the girls and enhancing for the boys.

It may be argued that the lack of results found for the
RMT may have been caused by the task situation, where the
children drew a map of the art room while in the room itself.
It was originally thought that such a task would give ample
cues to perform well. However, the obverse may have occurred,
sensory overload may have disrupted cognitive mapping.
Support for this argument was provided by Presson (1982);
Bluestein and Acredolo (1979); and Hardwick, McIntyre and Pick
(1976), all of whom noted that young children trying to orient
themselves within a room environment made more egocentric

errors than when outside the room. Kosslyn et a1 (1974) and

42

Weatherford and Cohen (1980) also found that elementary school
children made more distance estimation errors on barrier
interfering walks than on barrierless walks. Thus, the art
room (RMT) may have been perceived with barriers (tables)
which prevented a direct route from landmark to landmark
whereas the school corridors (SMT) were construed as barrier-
less (compare Appendix 3 with Appendix 5). The amount of
landmarks in this task were generally greater than in other
previous studies, except for Siegel and Schadler's (1977) in
which an entire classroom was reconstructed via a model. Also
the RMT was less specific than most in that the children were
asked to draw a map of their art room with the best landmarks.
The SMT was different from the RMT in two other ways.
First, the former incorporated the school and its immediate
surroundings (parking lot and playground) whereas the latter
was restricted to the art room. Both were previously termed
macrospatial, however Weatherford (1982) distinguishes be-
tween truly "1arge scale spaces" (e.g. the school or wilderness)
and "navigable/small scale spaces" (e.g. any room). There-
fore the tasks may not have been equatable. Secondly, the
SMT task was primarily a map reading task while the RMT was
a map reconstruction task. To reiterate, Blaut et a1 (1970)
previously demonstrated that five-year-olds were capable of
map reading skills. On the other hand Hazen et al (1978)
concluded that such skills were not sufficient for map

drawing. Thus, the disequilibrium slide presentation may

43

have been interfering for map drawing (RMT) while enhancing
for map reading (SMT).

Returning to Cox's (1977) study from which Hypothesis 2
was derived, the three mountain task was more akin to map
reading since it involved interpretation of perspectives and
no reproduction skills. Another difference was the much
longer time and training which Cox used (19 sessions @ 15
minutes each) as compared to this procedure, which lasted 30
minutes. Thus, disequilibrium exposure for a map drawing
task should probably involve extensive training in drawing
techniques and perspective taking if it is to result in better

performance.

Nature of the Variables

Initially the tasks seemed to measure the same spatial
skills, as predicted by Hypothesis 4. Calculating partial
correlations between pairs of the three variables with the
third held constant, revealed that NL had a greater relation-
ship to SMT than did LA to SMT. Thus, the SMT task appeared
to require more rudimentary spatial skills (NL) as opposed to
those measured by LA. These findings shed more light on the
already mentioned differences between the RMT and the SMT.
Since the SMT (map reading) was described as more rudimentary
than the RMT (map construction), it follows that the more
rudimentary NL variable (tOpography) would have a closer

relationship with SMT than the LA variable (projection).

44

Gender

Gender differences as predicted by Hypothesis 5 were
found for all three dependent variables. In particular,
gender differences were significant in the first grade,
but by the third grade such differences were not statistically
significant, thus indicating a leveling by age eight. One
could argue that gender differences are a function of this
transition period and that boys make the transition earlier
than girls.

Further light may be shed on this issue if we examine
the gender by grade interaction. Significant differences
were found between first and third grade control group females.
NO significant difference was found between third grade con-
trol group females and first grade males. The males' scores
increased with age, but not significantly. Thus, either the
males were develOpmentally advanced or the girls' performance
was more susceptible to interference. The former explanation
is somewhat less parsimonious, since it would not be expected
that the genders would equal out at third grade (as in this
investigation) and then show well documented differences at
puberty and beyond (Liben and Golbeck, 1980; Signorella and
Jamison, 1978; Macoby and Jacklin, 1974). Furthermore, only
Siegel and Schadler (1977) had previously reported gender
differences for this age period. As for the latter explana-
tion, support is given by Gildemeister and Friedman (1978)
who tested first graders' abilities with a combination of

spatial and verbal tasks as well as cognitive style measures.

45

A gender difference was found only for field dependence-
independence with females more field-dependent and susceptible
to environmental interference. Related studies (Liben &
Golbeck, 1980; Maxwell, Crooke & Biddle, 1975) using Piaget's
water level task also report early gender differences. The
mistakes in this task can be interpreted as being stimulus
bound to the perimeter of the container, that is, a type of
field—dependence. This further substantiates Siegel and
Schadler's (1977) explanation that their task was more com-
plex than those used in many other experiments of the same
nature, causing an overloading of the girl's ability to pro-
cess such information. Certainly such reconstruction tasks
(map drawing or modeling) are of a more difficult nature than

those involving only route and landmark recall.

Further Research

The fundamental question of whether cognitive maps are
isomorphic to cartographic maps is clear. They are not. The
"world according to Rand McNally" may not be the best criterion
for discerning children's cognitive maps since the produced
maps will always fall short in accuracy and complexity when
compared to the adult models. Rather than use a deficit
model, we could accept the fact that cognitive maps are loaded
with other moderating psychological factors. For instance, a
moderating variable is field dependence-independence which has
been already discussed. Another is familiarity as presented

in a compelling argument by Acredolo (1979). She tested

46

nine-month-old babies on a typical Object permanence task
(ball hidden under either a left or right cloth and then
rotated) under two conditions, that is, in a laboratory or
at home. The "home" babies performed the task correctly 65%
of the time, whereas the "laboratory" babies performed the
task correctly only 13% of the time. She concluded that un-
familiarity with the laboratory environment caused anxiety
which interfered with performance. Conversely, familiarity
with an environment relaxed the babies and promoted perform—
ance. This effect can easily be understood if we consider
our own apprehensions when encountering a "test" in a new
environment.

Social competence is another moderating variable. Mugny
and Doise (1978) demonstrated that 5-7 year olds performed
better on spatial tasks, when paired than when alone, con-
cluding that pairing helped to overcome egocentric thinking.
Interestingly, they also found that pairs with different
cognitive styles performed better than pairs with similar
cognitive styles. Thus, social discrepanices, that is, the
process of disequilibration may account for cognitive advance-
ment. Conversely, perspective taking studies involving
unpaired children by Fishbein et a1 (1972) and Fehr (1980)
demonstrated that older children made more correct responses
than the younger children but they also made more egocentric
errors. Thus, it appears we do not outgrow our egocentrism
but rather synchronize it with other developing strategies.

Such an argument makes sense when one considers that into

47

adulthood our perceptions are often affected by our own
biases to the exclusion of other salient viewpoints.

If we accept the fact that adult criteria, such as
comparisons to cartographic maps, may not be adequate to
assess the child's cognitive map then where are we to pro-
ceed? Siegel (1982) proposed a functionalist approach to
the study of children's spatial abilities. He advocated a
situation specific assessment of cognitive maps. For example
he noted that ratings of children's behaviors at home are
usually quite different from school ratings. Should we dis—
card the rating scale as unreliable? No, instead accept the
fact that children behave differentially across situations.
Analogously, map drawing tasks may only tap into specific
strategies not necessarily related to cartographic maps. He
further added that situational learning is highly dependent
on attitudes and motivations (n.b. Acredolo's familiarity and
Mugny's and Doise's social competency theories) as well as
cognitive styles. Thus a future model for studying children's
spatial abilities is necessarily complex having to take into
account such mediating factors as cognitive style, memory,
social competency and special skills.

The difficulty of incorporating such a model lies in the
validity of moderating variable measures, assuming one could
give all measures to large enough samples. For example, while
familiarity is intuitively significant, how does one measure
it as an independent variable? Acredolo's study (1979)

treated familiarity as a dependent variable. This example

48

raises a circularity argument often found in individual
differences studies. In this case, does familiarity breed
better performance on spatial tasks or do spatial abilities
breed familiarity with the environment? (Acredolo, 1982).
The same argument could apply to social competence or
field-dependence.

It was earlier noted that investigators in this field
were themselves transitioning towards macrospatial research
because Of a consideration of the utilitarian needs of the
child. The next step appears to be a continuation of this
line of reasoning, that is,1flu3investigation of moderating

variables.

LI ST OF REFERENCES

RFERENCE NOTES

Ferguson, L.R. Young children's performance on tests
of spatial abilities. Unpublished data, Michigan
State University, 1981.

Kirasic, K.C. and Beard, R.L. A multiple task approach
to children's acquisition and communication of spatial

knowledge. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of

the Society for Research in Child Development, Detroit,
1983.

49

LI ST OF REFERENCES

Acredolo, L.P. The familiarity factor in spatial research.
In R. Cohen (ed), New Directions for Child Development:
Children's ConceptiOns of Spatial RelationShips, no. 15.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, March, 1982.

 

 

Acredolo, L.P. DevelOpment of spatial orientation in infancy.
DevelOpmental Psychology, 1978, 14, 224-234.

 

Acredolo, L.P. DevelOpmental changes in the ability to
coordinate perspectives of a large-scale space.
Developmental Psychology: 1977, 13, 1-8.

 

Acredolo, L.P. Frames of reference used by children for
orientation in unfamiliar spaces. In G.T. Moore & R. G.
Golledge (Eds.), Environmental Knowing. Stroudsburg,
P.A.:Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1976.

 

Acredolo, L.P., Pick, H.L., & Olsen, M.G. Environmental
differentiation and familiarity as determinants of
children's memory for spatial location. Developmental
Psychology. 1975, 11, 495-501.

 

 

Allen, G.K., Kirasic, K.C., Siegel, A.W., 8 Herman, J.F.
Developmental issues in cognitive mapping: the selection
and utilization of environmental landmarks. Child
Develgpment, 1979, 59, 1062-1070.

 

Arnold, P. Mental rotation by deaf and hearing children.
Perceptual & Motor Skills, 1978, 41, 977-978.

 

Baird, J.C. & Merrill, A.A. Cognitive maps and computer.
In S. Weiderman & J. Anderson (Eds.), Priorities for
Environmental Design Research. Washington, D.C.:EDRA,
1978.

 

 

Bialystock, E. DevelOping representations for space: cultural
and cognitive factors. In B.J. Sacca & J. Victoria (Eds.),
Presentations in Art Education Research, No. 3. Montreal:
Concordia U. Press, 1979.

 

Blaut, J.M., McCleary, C.S., & Blaut, A.S. Environmental
mapping in young children. Environment and Behavior.
1970, 2, 335-349.

50

51

Bluestein, N., & Acredolo, L. DevelOpmental changes in
map-reading skills. Child Development. 1979, 50,
691-697. ——

 

Catling, S.J. The child's spatial conception and geographical
education. Journal of Geography, 1978, 11, 24-28.

 

Cohen, R. (Ed.) New Directions for Child Development:
Children's Conceptions of Spatial Relatibnships, no.
15. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, March, 1982.

 

 

Cohen, R., & Weatherford, D.L. Effects of route traveled on
the distance estimates of children and adults. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 1980, 29, 403-412.

 

Cox, M.V. Training perspective ability in young children.
In G.B. Butterworth (Ed.), The Child's Representation
of the World. New York:Plenum Press, 1977.

 

 

Cox, M.V. Order of the acquisition of perspective-taking
skills. Develppmental Psychology: 1978, 14, 421-422.

 

Downs, R.M. Personal constructions of personal construct
theory. In G.T. Moore & R.G. Golledge (Eds.), Environ-
mental Knowing, Stroudsburg, P.A.:Dowden, Hutchinson &
Ross, 1976.

 

Downs, R.M. Maps and mappings as metaphors for spatial
representation. In L.S. Liben; A.H. Patterson & N.
Newcombe (Eds.), Spatial Representation and Behavior
Across the Life Span, New York: Academic, 1981.

 

 

Downs, R.M., & Siegel, A.W. On mapping researchers mapping
children mapping space. In L.S. Liben; A.H. Patterson &
N. Newcombe (Eds.) Spatial Representation and Behavior
Across the Life Span, New York, 1981.

 

Erreich, A., & Valian, V. Children's internal organization
of locative categories. Child Development, 1979, 59,
1071-1077.

 

Fehr, L.A. The development of perspective ability: A
theoretical and methodological analysis of spatial
egocentrism. Dissertation Abstracts International.
1978, 38, 3432.

Fehr, L.A. Spatial landmarks revisited: Are they useful?
Journal Of Genetic Psychology. 1980, 136, 299-300.

 

Fehr, L.A.,& Fishbein, H.D. The effects of an explicit land-
mark On spatial judgements. In P. Suedfeld & J. Russell
(Eds.), The Behavioral Basis of Design. Vol. 1.
Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1976.

52

Feldman, A., &Acredolo, L. The effect Of active versus passive
exploration on memory for spatial location in children.
Child Development, 1979, 54, 698-704.

 

Fishbein, H.D., Lewis, S., & Keiffer, K. Children's under-
standing of spatial relations. Developmental Psychology,
1972, 1, 21—33.

 

Flavell, J.H. Stage related properties of cognitive develop—
ment. Cognitive Psychology, 1971, 2, 421-453.

 

Gildemeister, J.E., &Friedman, P. Cognitive style and visual
analysis in first graders of high and low verbal ability.
Perceptual & Motor Skills, 1978, 41, 759-766.

 

Hardwick, D.A., McIntyre, C.W., & Pick, H.L. The content and
manipulation of cognitive maps in children and adults.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Cogpitive
Development, 1976, 44, (3, Serial number 166).

 

Harris, P.L. The child's representation of space. In G.
Butterworth (Ed.) The Child's Representation of the World.
New York: Plenum, 1977.

 

Harris, P.L.,& Bassett, E.M. Reconstruction from the mental
image. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1976,
23;, 514-523.

 

Hazen, N.L., Lockman, J.L., & Pick, H. The development of
children's representation of large scale environments.
Child Development, 1978, 4_9_, 623-636.

 

Herman, J.F. and Siegel, A.W. The development of cognitive
mapping of the large-scale environment. Journal of
Experimental Child PsychologY. 1978, 44, 389-406.

 

 

Howard, R.B., Chase, S.D., & Rothman, M. An analysis of four
measures of cognitive maps. Environmental Design and
Research Association, 4, 1973, 254-264.

 

Huttenlocher, J.,& Presson, C.C. Mental rotation and the
perspective problem. Cpgnitive Psychology, 1973, 4, 277-
299.

 

Huttenlocher, J., & Presson, C. The coding and transformation
of Spatial information. Cpgnitive Psychology, 1979, 44,
375-394.

 

Kaplan, S. Adaptation, structure and knowledge. In G.T.
Moore & R.G. Golledge (Eds.), Environmental Knowing,
Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. 1976.

 

53

Kosslyn, S.M., Pick, H.L., & Fariello, G.R. Cognitive maps
in children and men. Child Development, 1974, 45, 707-
716.

 

Laurendeau, M.,& Pinard, A. The development of the concept
of space in the child. New York: International
Universities Press, 1970.

 

 

Liben, L.S., & Golbeck, S.L. Sex differences in performance
on Piagetian spatial tasks: Differences in competence
or performance? Child Development, 1980, 55, 594-597.

 

Macoby, E.E.,8&Jacklin, C.W. The psychology of sex differences.

 

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1974.

Marmor, G.S. Development of kinetic images: When does the
child first represent movement in mental images?
Cognitive Psychology, 1975, 1, 548-559.

 

Maxwell, J.W., Croake, J.W. & Biddle, A.P. Sex differences
in the comprehension of spatial orientations. Journal
of Psychology, 1975, 54, 127-131.

 

Millar, S. Spatial representation by blind and sighted
children. In G. Butterworth (Ed.), The Child's
Representation of the World. New York: Plenum Press,
1977.

 

 

Mitchell, L.S. Young Geographers. New York: Basic Books,
1963.

 

Moore, G.T. Theory and research on the development of
environmental knowing. In G.T. Moore & R.G. Golledge
(Eds.), Environmental Knowipg, Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden,
Hutchinson & Ross, 1976.

 

Mugny, G., & Doise, W. Socio-cognitive conflict and structure
of individual and collective performances. EurOpean
Journal of Social Psychology. 1978, 5, 181-1921.

 

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. Child's Conception of Space.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1956.

 

Presson, C.C. The development of map-reading skills. Child
Develppment, 1982, 53, 196-199.

 

Rushdoony, H.A. A child's ability to read maps: Summary
of the research. Journal of Geography, 1968, 51, 213-222.

Shannon, L. Spatial strategies in the counting of young
children. Child Development, 1978, 45, 1212-1215.

54

Siegel, A.W. Toward a social ecology of cognitive mapping.
In R. Cohen (ed), New Directions for Child Development:
Children's Conceptions of Spatial Relationships, no. 15.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, March, 1982.

Siegel, A.W., Allik, J.P.,81Herman, J.F. The primary effect
in young children: Verbal fact or spatial artifact?
Child Development, 1976, 41, 242-247.

 

Siegel, A.W.,SiSchadler, M. The development of young children's
spatial representations of their classrooms. Child
Development, 1977, 45, 388-394.

 

Siegel, A.W., &White, S.H. The develOpment of spatial
representation of large scale environments. In H.W.
Reese (Ed), Advances in Child Development and Behavior,
Vol. 10. New York: Academic Press, 1975.

Signorella, M.K., & Jamison, W. Sex differences in the
correlations among field dependence, spatial ability,
sex role orientation, and performance on Piaget's water
level task. Developmental Psychology, 1978, 44, 689-690.

 

Snyder, S.S., & Feldman, D.H. Internal and external influences
on cognitive developmental change. Child DevelOpment,
1977, 45, 937-943.

Stea, D. Environmental Mapping. Milton Keynes, England:
The Open University Press, 1976.

 

Tolman, E. Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological
Review, 1948, 55, 189-208.

Watkins, B., & Schadler, M. The development of strategy use
in a spatial task. The Journal of Genetic Psychology,
1980, 137, 109-117.

Weatherford, D.L., & Cohen, R. Influence of prior activity
on perspective taking. DevelOpmental Psychology, 1980,
55, 239-240.

Willats, J. How children learn to draw realistic pictures.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1977, 55,
267-382.

Vandenberg, S.G., & Kuse, A.R. Spatial ability: A critical
review Of the sex-linked major gene hypothesis. In M.A.
Wittig and A.C. Petersen, (Eds.), Sex-Related Differenceg
in Cognitive Functioning, New York: Academic Press, 1979.

APPENDIX 1
ROOM MAP TASK:

INSTRUCTIONS AND FORM

 

55

RMT ADMINISTRATION INSTRUCTION

 

"Today we are going to see how well you can draw a map
of the art room. Please pay attention because I want you to
do your best. If you have any questions please raise your
hand and we will help you.

Does anyone know what a map is? (Write the word "MAP"
on the board and listen for answers.) That's right, it's
a picture on a piece of paper that helps us to get around.
We can have maps of the world, of East Lansing and even one
of the art room. (Now distribute "incomplete maps" (Appendix 1)
to all children.) A map has landmarks on it. Who can tell me
what a landmark is? (Write the word "LANDMARK" on the board
and listen for responses.) Yes, that's right. They are
things on a map that you remember to help you get from one
place to another. These are maps of the art room, just like
the big one here. (Display enlarged version.) Who can show
me where the door is? Please raise your hand. (Listen for
responses.) That's right. Now everyone point to the door on
your maps. Keep your finger on the door until (the assistant's
name) or I can see if you are correct. Work as long as
possible. Good. (Repeat the same procedure for the "TOOL
CABINET".) Who knows what this is? (Pointing to the entire
window wall.) That's right. It's the only wall that has
windows in the room. Now, who can tell me what this is?
Think hard (pointing to the cart). That's right, it's the

cart. (Repeat for the RUG area.) Now you have found five

56

landmarks: the door, the tool chest, the windows, the cart
and the rug.

Next, I am going to show you some slides. (Show the first
slide.) What is this slide showing? That's right, it's a
slide of this room. Point to the corner of the room. Good.
Now please pay attention and look at the next slide and
without talking point to that part of the art room. That's
right. Now let's go through the rest of the slides. (Con-
tinue until all ten slides are shown.) Now you've seen some
slides of the art room. I want to show you them again for
the last time. Please pay attention. (Repeat slides.) Good.
You're all doing so well that I think it's time to let you
finish your maps.

"Now I am going to pass out pencils and I want you to
write your name on this line. (Point to NAME line of the
enlarged version.) If you need help please raise your hand.
When you are finished please put all your pencils down so
I'll know. (Check all names.) Good, now pay close attention.
I want you to look at the room around you and without talk-
ing look for landmarks. (Pause 30 seconds.) When I say
"begin," I want you to fill in your maps with as many land-
marks as possible. Be sure the landmarks are in the right
position on your map. This is not a drawing contest, so don't
shade or put in any details. Keep your landmarks simple.
Please do not talk or look at each other's maps. You will be
timed, so work as fast as possible. Are there any questions?

(Answer any.) OK, let's begin. (After 15 minutes.) Please

57

stop and we will collect your maps and pencils. How did you
like this project? (Listen for responses while maps and
pencils are collected.) One last thing. Please don't tell
your classmates about this until after school, so they can
have a chance to do it, too. OK? You did very well, thank

you."

 

APPENDIX 2

SCHOOL MAP TASK:

INSTRUCTIONS AND FORM

ROOM MAP TASK FORM

(Reduced 25%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

windows shown: windows suopuru windows

59

SMT ADMINISTRATION INSTRUCTIONS

 

"Print your name and your teacher's name on the sheet
we've handed out. When you're finished, put your pencils
down and listen carefully to my instructions. (Pause.)
This represents a map of a building. Can anyone tell me
where it is? Correct, it's this school. Now I am going
to ask you some questions about locations in the school and
I want you to put a number where you think it is. (Give two
examples of writing a number on the map. Check for all
names and placement of numbers. If all is OK then read the
following questions.)

1) Put an X in your regular classroom.

2) Put #1 on the gym.

3) Put the #2 on the main office where the secretary is.

4) Put the #3 on the kindergarten room.

5) Put the #4 on the library area.

6) Put the #5 on where the playground is.

7) Put the #6 on the art room.

8) Put the #7 on the principal's Office.

9) Put the #8 on the teacher's lounge.

10) Put the #9 on T__, the janitor's room.
11) Put the #10 where the parking lot is.
12) Put the #11 on the audio-visual supply room.

13) Put the #12 on the front door closest to the
secretary's Office.

6O

14) Put the #13 where the lost & found box is.
15) Put the #14 where you buy your milk.

Good work, and thanks!"

APPENDIX 3
SCORING MASTER FOR

NUMBER OF LANDMARKS (NL)

61

SCHOOL MAP TASK FORM

(Reduced 25%)

 

 

 

 

[—7
L_J
[—4

 

 

 

 

,_._ ____

L_

L___ T_-
r—a.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘3 LT!
T‘l

 

 

l l. l fillltfll l l L;

 

l, l TH

 

 

 

APPENDIX 4
DUPLICATE OF TRANSPARENT OVERLAY

FOR LANDMARK ACCURACY SCORING (LA)

 

   
 
 

O

 

'7. wood b1

  
  

 

   

16. ShuquS

 

 

shelves

62

SCORING MASTER FOR

NUMBER OF LANDMARKS (NL)

(Reduced 25%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\
\
\
\ 1. table 2. table 3. table m
\ -
door '
20. t. can
cabinet
fl C‘b. 5.
4. ‘
22' table cabinet
0 6°
'3
trash can
3
E 3
l_| 0°
2
i?! —— 2“. table o a).
E '3‘
‘ O
0 m8 0
3 r 3
2 °‘ -=
3
7‘ 3:
26. table
a 1—4. record playe
8
.5 11.
0-0 1.81315
0
O
:3
I“. 29. 25. ' 12.
table table table “b13
1- q
1‘.
file Ca- net
—
Q’
cart
[ 1;.umu

 

 

 

APPENDIX 5
SCORING MASTER FOR SCHOOL

MAP TASK (SMT)

63

DUPLICATE OF TRANSPARENT OVERLAY
FOR LANDMARK ACCURACY SCORING (LA)

(Reduced 25%)

 

 

.
-.. ‘o-ocoooooJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I

l— ...
l . . .
I . .
cccccccccc . .
. I
.... , :

I

I
b o.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX 6
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SCORING

NL, LA, SMT

64

SCORING MASTER FOR SCHOOL

MAP TASK (SMT)

(Reduced 25%)

 

H

 

 

 

 

i

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX 7

UCHRIS APPROVAL

65

SCORING PROCEDURES

 

1. Please alphabetize each group of drawings.

2. Please use pencil only when recording scores in
appropriate boxes.

3. Please use colored pencils when marking drawings.

MAPS

Number of Landmarks (NL)

 

1. Use scoring sheet and give 1 point for each object present.

Landmark Accuracy (LA)

 

1. On the child's drawing, draw diagonal lines from corner
to corner of those tables represented in your overlay
to determine intersecting center point.

2. Using the overlay score according to the following criteria:

\..
"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

{:3rv5rfi1w 5 pts. if center point falls within

...~ I

:srhu-‘vw dotted area

“\,ms:f----, 4 pts. if centerpoint falls within

9*"\<;""" solid area

I, -. Ly. r,v"--vv~"'~”' “""-"' '0'?

I Z

:tAWN1-HM ml“; 3 pts. if 3 solid overlay lines fall
within and/or intersect with drawn
area

 

2 pts. if 2 solid overlay lines inter-
sect with drawn area

. . «ml swm‘:A~.:-.a-§x«...p'

 

 

 

 

.M Mat} 1 point if 1 solid overlay line inter-
sects with a drawn area

 

 

 

School Map Task (SMT)

 

1. Use "Master Score Sheet" and give 1 point for each
correctly placed number (check beforehand for location
of X).

66

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

L'NlVI-ZRSIIY (‘()\IMIIII~I- ()\ RIM-ARCH IN\'()|.\'I\(; EAST LANSING ‘ MICHIGAN ° 48824
IILMAN SL'HJI‘I‘IS (l'leHS)
238 ADMINISIRA I'l()\ lil'll l)l.\(.

fir)usnm. November 2h, I98]

Mr. Ray J. Chin
Department of Psychology
23 Snyder Hall

Dear Mr. Chin:

Your request of November 2h for review of your proposed project
concerning child development has been received.

I believe that the project is a category I exemption and approval
is herewith granted for conduct of the project.

Thank you for bringing the study to my attention. If I can be of
future help, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

:\ .7 ~
f) ; I 33h" {Lt/‘4"-

Henry E. Bredeck
Chairman, UCRIHS

HEB/jms

cc: Dr. Ferguson