Understanding Maps as Symbols: The Development of Map Concepts in Children

Liben, Lynn S.; Downs, Roger M.

doi:10.1016/s0065-2407(08)60414-0

Cited by 130 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When asked to place colored stickers on a map in locations that corresponded to colored flags on a three-dimensional model of the same terrain, only 27% of the first graders' stickers and 40% of the second graders' stickers ended up in approximately the correct location (Liben & Downs, 1989). These and other research results lead to the conclusion that skilled map use is not an ability that develops naturally and inevitably in all children, like walking or talking.…”

mentioning

confidence: 77%

“…We made this judgment based on the recorded comments of students who did the flag-sticker activity in pairs during the pilot stage of the project and on prior research showing that locations on unique map symbols are easier than those on repeated symbols (e.g., Blades & Spencer, 1994;Liben & Downs, 1989), and locations proximal to landmarks are easier than locations remote from landmarks (Siegel, 1981).…”

Section: The Flag-sticker Field-based Map Skills Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…"stand-for relationship" or "representational correspondence" (Liben & Downs, 1989 between something in the real world and the type of symbol that is used to represent that type of thing on the map.…”

Section: Types Of Flag-sticker Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Eliciting Self-Explanations Improves Children's Performance on a Field-Based Map Skills Task

Kastens

Liben

2007

Cognition and Instruction

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To investigate children's ability to translate between the environment and an abstract representation, fourth graders were asked to indicate the location of colored flags by placing similarly colored stickers on a map. In the explaining condition, students wrote down what clues they had used; in the baseline condition, they placed stickers without explanation. The explaining students significantly outperformed the baseline students, especially with respect to egregious errors indicative of failure to understand basic representational correspondence. The hypothesized interpretation is that children who generated explanations were more likely to notice and then correct discrepancies between their answers in progress and the referent space and that they did so by activating existing spatial and symbolic competencies.Becoming a skilled user of maps in the real world is not an easy cognitive task. When people look around them, they see a world that is constantly changing: day to night, season to season, and minute to minute. They perceive a landscape of millions of tiny details: blades of grass, cracks in the sidewalk, ripples on the pond. They look horizontally out across the landscape, from a vantage point 4 or 5 ft (ap-

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: The Flag-sticker Field-based Map Skills Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Eliciting Self-Explanations Improves Children's Performance on a Field-Based Map Skills Task

Kastens

Liben

2007

Cognition and Instruction

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Confirmation that children are more likely to find interpretation difficult when there are conflicts between the properties of referent and representation comes from studies of children's understanding and judgments about maps (Liben, 1999;Liben & Downs, 1989). Children are able, for example, to identify correctly a river on a map because "it is blue," but become confused by (nonrealistic) coloring of main roads as red and built-up areas as yellow.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Realist Errors in Children's Responses to Pictures and Words as Representations

Thomas

Jolley

Robinson

et al. 1999

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Not only we should study if 'this type of 3D is good for task type x' (for what) but we should study if 'this type of 3D is good for task type x and participant type y' (for whom). Literature abounds with examples that expertise, i.e., education, experience, previous exposure (e.g., Çöltekin et al, 2010), spatial abilities (Liben & Downs, 1989;Huk, 2006), visual abilities (Fukuda et al, 2010), age (Schnürer et al, 2015), and possibly other characteristics, such as lack of sleep (Kong et al, 2011), or if the alphabet is pictorial/iconic, or if one reads and writes from left to right, or if one conventionally uses certain graphical designs, etc.) all have an influence on whether we benefit from working different kinds of graphics (including 3D), or not.…”

Section: Conceptual Organization Of Current Empirical Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Usability and Usefulness of 3d (Geo)visualizations – A Focus on Virtual Reality Environments

Çöltekin

Lokka

Zahner

2016

Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:Whether and when should we show data in 3D is an on-going debate in communities conducting visualization research. A strong opposition exists in the information visualization (Infovis) community, and seemingly unnecessary/unwarranted use of 3D, e.g., in plots, bar or pie charts, is heavily criticized. The scientific visualization (Scivis) community, on the other hand, is more supportive of the use of 3D as it allows 'seeing' invisible phenomena, or designing and printing things that are used in e.g., surgeries, educational settings etc. Geographic visualization (Geovis) stands between the Infovis and Scivis communities. In geographic information science, most visuo-spatial analyses have been sufficiently conducted in 2D or 2.5D, including analyses related to terrain and much of the urban phenomena. On the other hand, there has always been a strong interest in 3D, with similar motivations as in Scivis community. Among many types of 3D visualizations, a popular one that is exploited both for visual analysis and visualization is the highly realistic (geo)virtual environments. Such environments may be engaging and memorable for the viewers because they offer highly immersive experiences. However, it is not yet well-established if we should opt to show the data in 3D; and if yes, a) what type of 3D we should use, b) for what task types, and c) for whom. In this paper, we identify some of the central arguments for and against the use of 3D visualizations around these three considerations in a concise interdisciplinary literature review.

show abstract

Understanding Maps as Symbols: The Development of Map Concepts in Children

Cited by 130 publications

References 26 publications

Eliciting Self-Explanations Improves Children's Performance on a Field-Based Map Skills Task

Eliciting Self-Explanations Improves Children's Performance on a Field-Based Map Skills Task

Realist Errors in Children's Responses to Pictures and Words as Representations

On the Usability and Usefulness of 3d (Geo)visualizations – A Focus on Virtual Reality Environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About