When I begin to think about spatial thinking, I find it helpful to review what the scientific community has to say. In my search, I found what the National Research Council, 2006 (NRC) report had to say extremely interesting. They have defined thinking spatially as a separate form of intelligence based on three individual components: concepts of space, tools of representation, and process of reasoning. Interesting… In addition, I referred to Gardner (1983); though heavily criticized for lack of empirical evidence at the onset of his theory, he included the ability to think spatially as one of his measures of a person’s intelligence. The NRC report also claims the ability to think spatially is integral to everyday life, since everything exists in some aspect of a spatial relationship. This statement struck me especially today in our theory meeting this morning as we were trying to define driving. Some of the things we were considering about driving included simulator driving abilities, test taking, emotions, conditions, transferability and motor skills. During this conversation no one mentioned spatial thinking specifically. So if spatial thinking is so much a part of everyday life, then why do we not explicitly talk in terms of spatial thinking? Or do we? What do you think? How does spatial thinking effect your daily life? Do you agree or disagree with the NRC? Do you agree with Gardner?
Category Archives: scientists
One Month’s Worth
How much progress have I made on my thesis in the last month? Since last I posted about my thesis, I have completed the majority of my interviews. Out of 30 I need, I have all but four completed, and three of the four remaining scheduled. Out of about 20 eyetracking sessions, I have completed all but about 7, with probably 3 of the remaining scheduled. I also presented some preliminary findings around the eye-tracking at the Geological Society of America conference in a digital poster session. Whew!
It’s a little strange to have set a desired number of interviews at the beginning and feel like I have to fulfill that and only that number, rather than soliciting from a wide population and getting as many as I could past a minimum. Now, if I were to get a flood of applicants for the “last” novice interview spot, I might want to risk overscheduling to compensate for no-shows (which, as you know, have plagued me). On the other hand, I risk having to cancel if I got an “extra” subject scheduled, which I suppose is not a big deal, but for some reason I would feel weird canceling on a volunteer – would it put them off from volunteering for research in the future??
Next up is processing all the recordings, backing them up, and then getting them transcribed. I’ll need to create a rubric to score the informational answers as something along the lines of 100% correct, partially correct, or not at all correct. Then it will be coding, finding patterns in the data and categorizing those patterns, and asking someone to serve as a fellow coder to verify my codebook and coding once I’ve made a pass through all of the interviews. Then I’ll have to decide if the same coding will apply equally to the questions I asked during the eyetracking portion, since I didn’t dig as deeply to root out understanding completely as I did in the clinical interviews, but I still asked them to justify their answers with “how do you know” questions.
We’ll see how far I get this month.
What is Consciousness? How do you define it?
What is your definition of consciousness? How was your consciousness formed? Have you ever stopped and thought about this before? What are your thoughts? Today in Dr. Rowe’s theory meeting we had much conversation about consciousness in relation to Vygotsky and the sociocultural theory of learning.
Here is a quote from Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind by James V. Wertsch:
On the basis of this Marxian axiom Vygotsky argues that ‘the socialdimension of consciousness id primary in time and in fact. The individual dimension of consciousness is derivative and secondary’ (1979, p.30)” 1985, p. 58
In our meeting today the question was proposed that does this mean that for Vygotsky that there is no consciousness without the social aspect of society? The interactions between people and the formed realization of what these actions mean? What about the individualism of the person? What about the biological make-up of individuals? Do these factors play a role in the Vygotsky view of consciousness? Do they play a role in your view of consciousness?
The example one can think of when trying to wrap your brain around these questions is the symbol of language. One does not just know language, but one typically has the needed “biological functions” to produce the mechanics of sound. Language, and some argue even speech is a social behavior.
It became clear in our conversation that this view seems to have some deficits, mainly the lack of attention to the individual, the development of the individual as they grow and “learn” before the age of five and the role of the of form instruction given (school learning is very different then at home or social learning for example). As thoughts were brought forth, it seemed that we considered the role of the individual married with the social interaction begins that formation of consciousness. As the individual grows and develops the skills they acquire from the social group they are in as well as their own physical progression increases the amount of signs and tools for that individual. When one is able to deliberately choose what tool to use, knows how to use the tool, why they want to use the tool and what outcome they are expecting from the tool use, consciousness is forming. One statement that even takes this further by Dr. Rowe is that once an individual learns to use a tool, it potentially changes the way that individual will do all future things.
So what are your thoughts?
Wordle You Say? Or, how to use word clouds to look at your data
I have been shuffling through data from the Exploratorium’s scientist-in-residence (SIR) project and I started thinking about what data (and the kinds of ways data) can or should be shared on a blog. For now, I am going to share a few word clouds of raw data. These do not illustrate full sentences nor can you tell which participant said what.
Each of these word clouds was based off of a survey question that I wrote and administered.
Visitors to the exhibition space were asked, upon leaving, “What would you tell a friend this space was about?” The word cloud below contains data from the March residency, which focused on severe storm science (with scientists from NOAA’s National Severe Storm Lab).
Source: Uploaded by user via Free-Choice on Pinterest
The Exploratorium Explainers were an integral part of this project. At the end of the second year I asked all of the Explainers, the Lead Explainers, and the Explainer managers to voluntarily complete the online survey.
Here is how Explainer managers responded to “Describe the impacts of this project on the scientists.”
Source: Uploaded by user via Free-Choice on Pinterest
While the Explainer survey was quite long and there is a lot of rich data there, I want to focus on their thoughts about the iPad. The iPad was incorporated into the exhibition space as a mediating tool (as specified in the grant proposal). I asked the Explainers “Where and how do you think the iPad was incorporated throughout the project?” Their response…
Source: Uploaded by user via Free-Choice on Pinterest
So, what can we gain from word clouds? It is certainly one way to look at raw data. Thoughts?
So much data, so little time.
Ok, I guess I am following suit and forgot to post on Friday! I don’t have quite as good of an excuse as Katie. Instead of prepping for conferences I was recovering from a vacation.
I thought it might be nice to provide an update about the Exploratorium project, where NOAA scientists are embedded on the museum floor with the Explainers (Exploratorium front-line staff consisting of young adults). I have collected so much data for this project I am beginning to feel overwhelmed.
Here’s the data that I have collected:
– Formal Interviews with each of the four groups of scientists, both before and after their experience.
– Informal interviews with all of the scientists. These were done in the time walking back to the hotel or when grabbing lunch. Both great times to collect data!
– Interviews with the two Explainer managers plus a survey with open- and closed-ended questions at the end of year 2.
– Interviews with each of the lead Explainers, 8 total. Also, lead Explainers during year 2 completed a survey with open- and closed-ended questions.
– Pre- mid- and post- data for what Explainers think atmospheric sciences is and what atmospheric scientists do. This was not done during the first year topic of ocean sciences.
– I also provided an optional survey for all Explainers so they could share their thoughts and opinions about the project. This provided a reflection opportunity for the Explainers that were not lead Explainers during the project.
– Visitor surveys about their experience in the scientists’ installation. During year 2 these were collected in both paper form and using survey software on the iPad.
– Field notes during meetings and time on the museum floor. During year 2 the field notes were taken on the iPad using survey software.
– And lastly…personal daily reflections.
So the question is “now what?” This data provides opportunities for triangulation but where does one start? I’m spending my final month of summer trying to figure that out.
Hopefully my next blog post will showcase my progress and some findings.