Out PDF

SPATIAL SENSE AND REPRESENTATIONAL STRATEGIES
USED BY CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY
DIVERSE FIRST GRADE STUDENTS
DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF SPATIAL SENSE TASKS
by
Yolanda Molina-Serrano
February 1, 2004
A dissertation submitted to the

Faculty o f the Graduate School of
The State University of New York at Buffalo
in partial fulfillment o f the requirements for the
degree of
Doctor o f Philosophy
Department o f Learning and Instruction
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3113514
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignm ent can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3113514
Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My deepest thanks go to all the people who were part of this painful journey. First
and foremost to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who extended his mercy and grace upon
my soul and the whole world two thousand years ago. Second are the members of my
committee, Dr. Thomas T. Frantz, Dr. Douglas H. Clements, and Dr. Lillian M. Malave;
to my outside reader Dr. Olivia Saracho and to Dr. Rodney Doran for his advisement.
Third, to the rest of wonderful and resourceful individuals who helped and guided me
through this long and excruciating voyage. To my family: mi esposo Danny, mis hijos
Harumi y Cesar Gabriel; mi mama Lydia; mi papa Israel; mi hermana Nancy y su esposo
Juan Carlos; mi cunada Lissie y su esposo Wig; mis suegros, Don Fausto y Dona Charin;
Wandi, Shareen y Titi Magui por sus oraciones. Mis amigos de Buffalo, Lillian, Rick,
Alexia, Janine, Sirirat, Graziela, Susan, Colleen and the LAI/GSA; Miguel y Fabiola;
Carlos y Susana, el grupo de Latinos/GSA, Susan Tze y Barbara Rascoe. Mi iglesia
Logos en Caguas y a mis hermanos: Pastor Abner y Sonia, Emily, Rene y Nereida, Elsie
y Raul; Hector y Edna; Hna. Ruth y Madeline. To the computer gurus of the Walkway
Node: Howard, Alex and Tim Kong from CIT. To my community helpers: Alba Gomez,
gracias mil; Pastor Gautier and his church; Pastores Samuel y Janet, y al Ejercito de
Salvacion, gracias por sus oraciones; a Cuco y Mary; a Dona Iraida y familia; a Casimiro
Rodriguez y familia; a Rosalba de Agudelo; to Tapestry Charter School and the Buffalo
Public Schools. To all the children and parents who accepted the challenge of being part
of this educational research. To all the medical personnel of ECMC, who were involved
in resuscitating my husband, when he suffered a devastating accident three months before
the defense of this dissertation; to the Covenant Academy, staff and students and to all
who prayed for my husband’s recovery and for my sanity and strength, thank you and
may God bless you abundantly. This dissertation was partially funded by the Mark
Diamond Research Foundation and the Graduate Student Association at SUNY-UB.
“Now when Job's three friends heard of all this evil that was come upon him, they came
every one from his own place...for they had made an appointment together to come to
mourn with him and to comfort him.” Job 2:11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract............................................................................................................................... VI-VII
List of Tables...........................................................................................................................VIII
List of Figures.............................................. IX-X
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1
Spatial Sense and Young Children......................................................................................... 1-3
Tactile Perception....................................................................................................... 3-6
Drawing Geometric Solids: Cube and Cylinder....................................................6-14
Visualization............................................................................................................ 15-16
Visual M atching....................................................................................................... 16-17
Free-hand 3D Drawing .................................................................................. 17-21
Representational Strategies through Drawing................................................................... 21-23
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Young Children....................................................23-25
General Statement of the Problem...................................... 26
Significance of the Study...............................................................................................27
Research Questions........................................................................................................ 27
Definition of Terms.................................................................................................. 28-32
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................33
CHAPTER II
METHOD..................................................................................................................................... 34
-II-
Pilot Study................................................................................................................34-36
Procedures for Data Collection.................................................................................................37
Participants.................................................................................................................... 37
Entry..........................................................................................................................37-38
Variables.................................................................................................................... 38-40
M aterials..........................................................................................................................40
Oral and Performance Interview for Spatial Sense Tasks.................................. 41-42
Tactile Perception Tasks............................................................................42-44
Visualization Tasks.................................................................................... 44-49
Free-hand 3D Drawing........................................................... 49-50
Instruments of Assessment.............................. 50-52
Scoring the Tactile Perception Tasks....................................................... 53-54
Scoring the Visualization Tasks................................................................54-56
Classification of Representational Strategies.......................................... 56-60
Inter-rater Reliability..................................................................................61-62
Variables and Research Questions.............................................................................. 62
Independent Variable.................................................................................. 62-63
Dependent Variables and Research Questions............................................. 63
Research Question 1....................................................................................63-64
Research Question 2 ........................................................................................64
Research Question 3 ...................................................................................64-66
Research Question 4 ...................................................................................66-67
- Ill -
Research Question 5 67
C H A PTE R III
RESULTS................................................................................................................................... 68
Introduction................................................................................................................... 68
Analysis for Research Questions 1-3........................................................................ 68
Research Question 1.................................................................................. 68-70
Research Question 2 .................................................................................. 70-71
Research Question 3 ............................. , ................................................... 71-72
Analyses for Research Questions 4-5....................................................................... 72
Research Question 4 ................................................................................... 72-76
Research Question 5 ................................................................................... 76-78
Other Results.............................................................................................. 78-80
C H A PTE R IV
Discussion of the Results...........................................................................................................81
Introduction.................................................................................................................... 81
Discussion of Findings: One-Way Analysis of Variances.......................................81
Research Question 1...................................................................................81-82
Research Question 2 ........................... 82
Research Question 3 ....................................................................................82-83
Other Drawing Categories..........................................................................93-95
-IV-
Im plications............................................................................................................. 96-97
Limitations of the Study............................................................................................... 97
Suggestions for Further Research...........................................................................97-98
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 99-108
APPENDIXES
Appendix A: Memorandum (Meeting with Alternative Assessment
Expert)................................................................................................109-114
Appendix B: Letter of Request to the School Superintendent........................115-116
Appendix C: Letter of Request to the School Principals and
First Grade Teachers.................................................................... 117-118
Appendix D: Formal Approval of Fluman Subject Review Board................119-120
Appendix E: Invitation to Partecipate............................................................... 121-123
Appendix F: Invitation to Participate/Spanish Version...................................124-126
Appendix G: Consent Form/English Version................................................... 127-128
Appendix H: Consent Form/Spanish Version..................................................129-130
Appendix I: Protocol Interview to Conduct the Spatial Sense Tasks............131-139
Appendix J: Protocol Interview to Conduct the Spatial Sense Tasks/Spanish
Version..............................................................................................140-147
Appendix K: Scoring Rubric for Spatial Sense and Representational
Strategies....................................................................................... 148-160
Appendix L: Contour Drawings of Cube and Cylinder.......................................... 161
Appendix M: Free-hand drawings of 3D M odel...................................................... 162
-V-
Abstract
This study investigated the performance of first grade students in spatial sense tasks and
it examined the representational strategies used during the completion of selected
drawing tasks. Spatial sense was studied through the students' performance on spatial
non-verbal tasks related to tactile perception (the tactual perception of objects or shapes)
and visualization (the ability to manipulate visual representations of objects). The
representational strategies were analyzed through young children's contour drawings of
geometric solids and free-hand 3D drawings in relation to drawing systems and drawing
devices. Children's spatial sense performance and their representational strategies were
evaluated using two spatial sense instruments pilot tested for the study: 1) a spatial sense
interview and 2) a scoring rubric for spatial sense and representational strategies. The
sample included forty first grade students. Ten students were Hispanics whose dominant
language was Spanish; 10 were Hispanics who were largely English speakers; 10 were
Anglo-Europeans and 10 African-American English monolinguals. For convenience, this
sample was selected from a Western New York inner city public school district and it
comprised primarily of students of the same low socioeconomic status. The children
manipulated geometric solids and transferred tactile and visual information into drawings
or pictorial renderings. The quantitative data were analyzed using one-factor ANOVAs.
A significant difference was found for the Anglo-European group only in the tactile
perception task and non-significant differences between the four cultural/linguistic
groups were found in the rest two analysis of the study, suggesting a possible similarity in
-V I -
children's approach to problem solving in spatial sense tasks. The remainder research
questions were qualitatively analyzed by placing strong emphasis on the drawings
derived from the spatial sense tasks. The qualitative analysis was based on the tactile-
contour and free hand 3D drawings made by the students during the spatial sense tasks.
Data from the drawings suggest a developmental pattern in the children's drawings with
creative and innovative approaches to visual problems. The findings of this study provide
background for the importance of pictorial development in the early school years.
-VII-
List of Tables
Table 1. Pictorial Developmental Taxonomy of a Cube (lo f 3).................................... 11
Table 2. Pictorial Developmental Taxonomy of a Cube (2of 3)....................................12
Table 3. Pictorial Developmental Taxonomy of a Cube (3of 3)....................................13
Table 4. Pictorial Developmental Taxonomy of a Cylinder........................................... 14
Table 5. Statistical Results of Pilot Study............................................................................... 36
Table 6. Possible Scores of the Spatial Sense Tasks..............................................................52
Table 7. Drawing Systems and Drawing Devices in
Tactile Contour Drawings of a Cube...........................................................................58
Table 8. Drawing Systems and Drawing Devices in Contour Drawings
of a Cylinder................................................................................................................. 59
Table 9. Drawing Systems and Drawing Devices in Free-hand drawings
of a 3D M odel...............................................................................................................60
Table 10. Mean Scores of Tactile Perception by group......................................................... 69
Table 11. One-Way ANOVA for Tactile Perception (RQ #1)............................................. 69
Table 12. Scheffe Post Hoc Comparisons for Haptic Perception (RQ # 1 )........................ 70
Table 13. Mean Scores of Visual Matching by group (RQ #2)............................................ 70
Table 14. One-Way ANOVA for Visual Matching (RQ # 2)................................................ 71
Table 15.Mean Scores of Free-hand 3D Drawing by group (RQ # 3 )................................. 71
Table 16. One-Way Anova for Free-hand 3D Drawing (RQ 3 )........................................... 72
Table 17. Frequency of Drawing Systems/Cube’s Contour Drawing (RQ # 4 )..................73
- VIII-
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 18. Frequency of Drawing Systems/Cylinder’s Contour Drawing (RQ #4)............ 74
Table 19. Frequency of Drawing Systems/Free-hand Drawing of 3D Model (RQ #4).. ..75
Table 20. Frequency of Drawing Devices in Tactile Contour Drawings
of a cube (RQ #5)......................................................................................................... 76
Table 21. Frequency of Drawing Devices in Tactile Contour Drawings
of a cylinder (RQ #5)........................ 77
Table 22. Frequency of Drawing Devices in Free-hand 3D Drawings (RQ #5)............... 78
Table 23. Frequency of Other Features as Representational Strategies...............................79
-IX-
List of Figures
Figure 1: Sample of Geometric Solids U sed........................................................................... 44
Figure 2: Orthographic view of a rectangular prism ............................................................ 46
Figure 3: Orthographic view of a 2" x 2" cylinder............................................................... 46
Figure 4: Orthographic view of two sides of a cone .......................................................... 47
Figure 5: Orthographic view of a square base pyramid.......................................................48
Figure 6: Orthographic drawings of the four so lid s...............................................................55
Figure 7: Line Drawing of 3D M odel.......................................................................................56
Figure 8: Samples of schematic/orthographic drawings..........................................................84
Figure 9: Samples of orthographic and oblique projections
Produced by the same children.....................................................................................85
Figure 10: Samples of intellectual realism ............................................................................... 87
Figure 11: Samples of drawing devices in tactile contour drawings................................... 89
Figure 12: Segregation or Moving Objects.............................................................................90
Figure 13: Samples of H LE...................................................................................................... 91
Figure 14: Transparency or interposition in free-hand drawings.........................................92
Figure 15: Samples of cube and cylinders drawn like rhomboidalshapes........................93
Figure 16: Necker Cube and child’s drawing..........................................................................95
-X -
1
C H A PTE R I
Introduction
The development of children drawings has interested scholars and educators,
especially when this development seems to be rooted in the child’s construction of
spatial-mathematical concepts (Golomb, 2000). Children have particular ways to
represent visual information into a plane of two dimensions: the page. Not only children
use pencil and paper or any other medium to draw or project their images but also they
sense, build and play with objects before they transform the information into a visual
output. And their drawings are rich with visual information about their understanding of
objects’ properties along with strategies to solve representation dilemmas. The children
conceive, plan, and organize their drawings using spatial sense and representational
strategies. This study departed from the apparent connection between spatial sense and
representational strategies.
In this chapter, a combination of the available research and professional literature
in the topics of spatial sense and representational strategies, considering children of
diverse ethnicity and backgrounds, is discussed. The general statement of the problem, its
significance, research questions, and definitions are also introduced at the end.
Spatial Sense and Young Children
The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) defined spatial sense
in the following terms: "spatial sense is an intuitive feel for one's surrounding and the
objects in them" (1989, p. 49). In the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School
Mathematics, the NCTM (1989) established the importance of developing spatial sense in
2
the K-4 curriculum with instructional activities that facilitate this development. The
Standard 9 for Geometry and Spatial Sense stated the following:
• “In grades K-4, the mathematics curriculum should include two and
three dimensional geometry so that students can: describe, model, draw
and classify shapes to develop spatial sense” (p.l, http://www.enc.org/
reform/fworks/000221/28048s9.htm).
• “In learning geometry, children need to investigate, experiment, and explore with
every day objects and physical materials. Exercises that ask children to visualize,
draw, and compare shapes in various positions will help develop their spatial
sense”(p. 2, http://www.enc.org/reform/fworks/000221/28048s9.htm).
In its on-line version, in the NCTM Geometry Standards for the year 2000 for Grades
Pre-K-2, the term “spatial sense” was changed to “spatial relationships”, as stated in the
following selected excerpts from Chapter 4 which define the newly-coinage term and
map its importance for the school system. See complete reference on
(http://standards.nctm. org/document /chapter4/geom.htm):
“Instructional programs from pre-kindergarten through grade 12 should enable all

students to—
Analyze characteristics and properties of two- and three-dimensional geometric
shapes and develop mathematical arguments about geometric relationships
• recognize, name, build, draw, compare, and sort two- and three-
dimensional shapes;
• describe attributes and parts of two- and three-dimensional shapes;
• investigate and predict the results of putting together and taking apart two-
and three-dimensional shapes.
Use visualization, spatial reasoning, and geometric modeling to solve problems
3
• create mental images of geometric shapes using spatial memory and

spatial visualization;
• recognize and represent shapes from different perspectives;
• relate ideas in geometry to ideas in number and measurement;
• recognize geometric shapes and structures in the environment and specify
their location”
The professional literature also stresses the need to develop spatial sense in school
age children. Bruni and Seidstein (1990) suggested that students should develop spatial
sense skills during their school years through the identification, description, comparison,
modeling, drawing and classification of geometric figures in two and three dimensions.
Moreover, the NCTM ’s concepts of spatial sense (NCTM, 1989) and spatial relationship
(NCTM, 2000) relate to two constructs that are addressed in this study: tactile perception
(the tactile perception of objects) and visualization (the ability to manipulate
representations of visual objects). Because students in grades K-4 should describe, model,
draw and classify shapes to develop spatial sense (NCTM, 2000), this study investigated
children’s tactile perception performance by describing and drawing two geometric solids
(a cube and a cylinder) hidden from sight in a can. The following paragraphs discuss
literature related to these derivatives.
Tactile Perception
Tactile perception or haptic perception is the ability to situate space only by
touch, bodily feelings and muscular sensations (Lowenfeld, 1957). Tactile perception
tasks provide students with an opportunity to manipulate objects. By drawing what they
perceive, students create images at the conceptual level. It is important for young children
to have opportunities to handle and construct spatial models to improve the spatial
representation in their drawings (Venger, 1982). According to Guthrie, (1994) when
4
children are given the opportunity to manipulate objects before they draw them, they
demonstrate different spatial representation and tend to perform better on drawing tasks
(Guthrie, 1994). To transform a three-dimensional image or form it into a two-
dimensional plane, young children need first to ‘see depth’ in the objects (holmes,
Hughes & Gunnar, 1998).
Piaget and Inhelder (in Pauli, Natham, Droz & Grize, 1977) developed an
experiment to study how the child progressed from the tactile perception of shapes to
their visual recognition and graphic representation. Two sets of objects were placed
behind an opaque screen. The children were asked to manipulate the shapes and the
objects without looking at them, and to either draw the objects or match them with
duplicates (in Clements & Battista, 1992; in Pauli et al, 1977). Objects used with the very
young included dice, pencils, and balls, etc. Geometric shapes made out of cardboard and
consisting of simple or complex asymmetrical and topological shapes (non-angular) were
used for the older children. Consequently, they established a theory of cognitive
development in how children perceive space, objects within, and their representation by
stating that children undergo through a series of developmental stages or levels based on
their exploration, recognition, selection and drawing of the shapes. Pauli et al (1977)
summarized Piaget’s levels of space development as follows:
Level 0: 0 to 3 years - experimentation not possible
Level 1 - (3 years) - Exploration: child is unable to explore. Recognition: he/she
recognizes objects which are familiar to him/her and concentrates only in
one characteristic of the figure; Selection: child fails to select the shapes:
Drawing: scribbles
Level 2 - (4 years) - Exploration: child uses his/her two hands to feel and turn the
shapes; Recognition; cannot discriminate between close and open figures
and is incapable to identify elementary geometrical shapes nor recognize
straight lines and angles; Selection: prefers curvilinear forms; Drawing:
still scribbling
Level 3 - (5 years) - Exploration: still undifferentiated; Recognition: begins to
distinguish between figures with curves and straight lines but not
within each class; Selection; distinguish curves between rectilinear forms
but confuses the others; Drawing: draws shapes that resemble each other
Level 4- (5-6 years) - Exploration: looks for significant differences; Recognition:
distinguishes the shapes by their angles and dimensions e.g. circle/ellipses,
square/rectangle; Selection: identifies simple symmetrical shapes but
some difficulties with rhombus-like shapes; Drawing; same as recognition
Level 5 - (5-6 years) - Exploration/recognition: trial and error; Selection/
Drawing: makes mistakes representing complex shapes
Level 6 - (7 years) Exploration: Systematic based on a fixed point of reference;
Selection/Drawing: takes account of spatial arrangement and distances
In Levels 1 through 3 children’s concept of space is based on topological
relations, “ ... a qualitative and non-metric representation of space that is ignorant of
Euclidean relations of proportion, length, distance, and shape, and unconcerned with the
projective relations of perspective. These drawings according to Piaget, reveal the child’s
synthetic incapacity” (Golomb, p.15). Topology is also described by W illats (1997) as
“rubber sheet” geometry: “If a figure is printed on rubber sheet and the sheet is stretched
or twisted, basic spatial relations such as proximity and enclosure will remain unchanged,
although distances between the marks may change and straight lines may not remain
straight” (p.70). In Levels 4 trough 6 the child’s drawings have details, are better
organized but depict a distorted view of the object. These stages were defined under
“Intellectual Realism” or a representation of space which contain: transparencies, mixed
views, fold-out figures, incorrect occlusion and different viewpoints, all of which Piaget
and Inhelder concluded that were errors of representation. (Golomb, 2000).
Although Piaget and Inhelder established the theoretical background on plane and
projective geometry in young children, as a developmental ladder, other researchers have
challenged their conclusions. As Clements and Battista stated (in Wilson, 2002), results
on studies replicating Piaget and Inhelder do not support the topological dominance
theory when examining children’s perception of shapes, because children tend to have
changing representation of shapes. However, this study is mounted on the premise that
young children draw what they know rather than what they see (Piaget & Inhelder, 1967),
and that this knowledge compels them to use different drawing systems and devices to
convey meaning in a two-dimensional plane (Freeman, 1980).
Drawing geometric solids: cube and cylinder
Researchers have studied drawings done by elementary school children and trying
to understand children’s natural depiction of angular and topological shapes, they have
proposed theoretical explanations of children’s inaccuracy when drawing geometrical
solids such as a cube and a cylinder (Caron-Pargue, 1992; Chen 1985; Chen & Cook,
1984); Deregowski, 1976; Deregowski & Dziurawiec, 1994; Freeman, 1986, 1987,
Hobbs & Pratt, 1978, Mitchelmore, 1978, 1980, 1985, 1987; Nicholls & Kennedy, 1992;
Piaget & Inhelder, 1967; Toomela, 1999; Willats, 1984). A number of these researchers
have followed and departed from Piaget and Inhelder’s conceptual framework of
children’s representation of space, resulting in the development of their own unique
theoretical schema of children’s drawings. Although, out of these studies reviewed, only
Piaget and Inhelder (1963) conducted theirs using tactile-perception and drawing, the
following literature presents answers to the question of how young children represent
either a cube or a cylinder in their drawings.
Park and I (1995) presented a review of empirical studies based on children’s
representation systems in drawing three-dimensional objects. They reviewed 34 studies
from 1967 to 1992 and categorized the studies into: 1) representation of spatial relation
within an object, 2) between two objects, and 3) both within an object and between
objects. For the purpose of this study, the researcher only reviewed the available studies
analyzed by Park and I, which were categorized as “within an object” and from those, the
ones that used either a cube and a cylinder in their stimulus for the children (Lewis &
Livson, 1967; Mitchelmore, 1978).
Lewis and Livson (1967) studied 465 children from grades one through six in
three public schools in California. The children were required to draw 3D geometric
forms: a cube, a pyramid, pentagon and a cylinder. The drawings were classified into four
points scale, based on the faces displayed. The face or facet is the flat side or surface of a
three-dimensional object (Mitchelmore, 1978) Drawings with one face of the geometric
form were given one point. Two or more faces received two points; drawings with more
than two faces but related incorrectly received three points and the ones showing
photographic likeness scored 4 points. They found that children move from the simplest
forms of representing a geometric solid with one face to showing several sides of the
figure in one plane, but that these representational changes are more rapid during the
early elementary school years tending to decelerate in the later grades, which may explain
the phenomenon of why adults with no formal art training tend to draw like children.
Mitchelmore (1978, 1980, 1985, 1987) proposed that young children go through
developmental “stages of representation of regular figures” when drawing cubes. At stage
one, the child represents a cube by a square. At stage two, several squares are put side by
side. At stage three, oblique (slanted) lines are introduced, and at stage four, drawings are
made in perspective. Mitchelmore (1978) studied 80 students from ages, ages 7-15 years
old from public schools in Kingston, Jamaica. Five wooden solids were used: a cuboid, a
cylinder, a square pyramid, a cube and a cone. The children were asked to see each solid
for seconds and draw them by memory. Then the children were allowed to see the solids,
and to draw them without time any time constraint. The drawings were classified using a
stage scale. Stage 1 showed one face; Stage 2, schematic (drawings showed dissection
and parallels sections); Stage 3A “unfaithful drawings” (examples of incipient oblique);
Stage 3B “almost faithful drawings” (examples of advanced incipient oblique; and Stage
4 correct perspective. The drawings produced by the students in the two conditions lead
Mitchelmore to conclude that “a person posses certain schemata for representing various
solid figures and only modifies them slightly to fit any given example”, (p.237)
Caron-Pargue (1992), studied how children from 3 to 11 years draw a cylinder in
three conditions: “ 1) cylinder lying on its side; 2) cylinder standing up; 3) cylinder freely
manipulated by the child” (p.51). The child was given a 4”x 2” wooden cylinder, a pencil
and paper to draw it. In the first two conditions the child was not allowed to touch the
cylinder but just to draw it and in the third condition the child manipulated the solid
he/she was drawing. Caron-Pargue found age-related changes in the children’s drawings,
and classified the drawings into visual categories or “typology” . The typology presented
four stages that emerged in the drawing of the cylinder: 1) scribbles and fillings (the sheet
is filled with geometrical shapes, such as ovals, circles or rectangles; 2) single figures (a
single unit stands to represent the object); 3) decompose (the child tends to decompose
the single units of the solids to encode information, and to represent the different faces of
the solid on the drawing) and 4) recompose (those units united into an integrated unit). In
conclusion, the decomposition and re-composition is a double process or drawing device
that enables the child to eventually move into the perspective direction in his/her
drawings.
Chen (1985) tested the adequacy of a six-point scale in assessing children’s ability
to draw a solid object in perspective. Forty children (20 six year olds and 20 eight year-
olds) were asked to draw a cube and a cylinder under three conditions: from a three-
dimensional model, copying a photograph and copying a line drawing of the same object.
The drawings were classified into a developmental sequence, from class 1 to class 6.
Class 1 revealed only basic features; class 2 tended to represent both visible and hidden
surfaces; class 3 manifested primitive attempts at angles and curvature; class 4 had the
top-bottom and side-side relationships correctly represented; class 5 had foreshortening
of tilted surfaces and in class 6 the drawings had correct perspective representations. The
results of Chen’s study revealed that the real life drawings were less advanced than the
copied drawings and the drawings copied from line-drawing models were more advanced
then the ones copied from photographs. The cylinder drawings attained higher scores
than the cube in the six points scale, and that the 8-year-olds did better than their younger
counterparts, suggesting that age affects children’s drawing performance. Previously,
Chen and Cook (1984) stated, first that when a young child attempts to draw a three-
dimensional solid such as a cube, he/she must first decide what level of abstraction is
appropriate for drawing the object. Second, he/she must select the aspects of the object
that are to be represented and third, that the child must translate three-dimensional
information into a two-dimensional picture plane.
Willats (1984) proposed that children's pictorial depiction of a cube is the result of
a series of interactions between production and perception. The child starts moving from
drawing one face of the cube in a non-angular manner to a sophisticated projection system
of spatial structures. Projective spatial structures involve coordination of perspective and
allow one to realize that the appearance (i.e., size, shape, distance, and angularity) of
objects is a function of the spatial position from which they are seen (McArthur & Wellner,
1996). According to Willats, the first attempts of a child to render a realistic cube in a
primitive rendition of perspective is achieved by observation or visualization, but to master
true perspective, a child needs to be exposed to an adult's notions of perspective and have
direct instruction. Based on the literature about how young children draw a cube and a
cylinder, this researcher compiled a taxonomical and pictorial display. The displays include
possible ages when the pictorial behavior appears, pictorial representation of the
researchers’ description and categorization, and literature references. See tables 1-4 (pages
11-14). These pictorial descriptions are limited to children’s displays of a cube and a
cylinder and are culturally related to industrialized societies.
Table 1 Pictorial Developmental Taxonomy of a Cube 1 of 3

Age Representation
Description Stage/Classification Researcher/Author
2.6 scribbles Toomela (1999)
3.4
o closed curved form
enclosure
Willats (1984)
Nicholls & Kennedy (1992)
4.6-7
□ orthographic projection
single unit
closed outline
one square
topological drawing
simple square
Topological
Willats (1984)
Toomela (1999)
Deregowski & Strang (1977)
Nicholls & Kennedy (1992)
Piaget & Inhelder (1967)
Freeman, (1993)
one face Lewis & Livson (1967)
single face Plane schematic Mitchelmore, (1978)
simple outline Deregowski (1976)
topological property Mitchelmore (1987)
ambiguous improbable view Phillips, Hobbs & Pratt ( 1978)
5-6 |'| basic drawing features Chen (1985)

CD square with parallel line
horizontal oblique projection
Deregowski (1977)
Nicholls (1995)
class 1 Intellectual realism Chen & Cook (1984)
5-6 t — I— 1 two squares Nicholls & Kennedy (1992)

i l l horizontal oblique projection Willats (1984)
differentiated figure Toomela (1999)

Age Representation
vertical oblique projection Nichools (1995)

square with parallel line Deregowski (1977)
outline with inner divisions Deregowski & Strang (1986)
two squares Nicholls & Kennedy (1992)

vertical oblique projection Willats (1984)
fold out Nicholls & Kennedy (1992); Willats (1984)

one face with more faces Willats (1984)
visible surfaces Chen & Cook (1984)
impossible view Phillips et al (1978)
several faces Solid schematic Mitchelmore (1978)

parallels Freeman (1993)
projective property
BJ
Mitchelmore (1987)
visible and occluded faces Stage 2 Chen(1985)
set of squares or rectangles Deregowski (1976)

differentiated figure Toomela (1999) to

Age Representation
7-8 outline with inner divisions Deregoski & Strang (1986)

narrow rectangles attached to square Nicholls & Kennedy (1992)
visible and occluded faces Stage 3 Chen (1985)
6-8 oblique lines introduced Euclidean concept of parallelism Mitchelmore (1987)

intermediate stage to oblique Willats (1984)
diagonals/projective system Freeman (1993)
advanced attempt to show
near far relationship Class 4 Chen (1984)
7-8 frontal vertex shown by Y junction

and vertex at base by T-junction Nicholls & Kennedy (1992)
straight line representing edge of
non visible surface Class 4 Chen & Cook (1984)
almost faithful Pre-realistic Mitchelmore (1978)
dissection Nicholls & Kennedy (1992)
Necker cubes Cox (1992); Freeman (1993)
after 7 Integrated whole Toomela (1999)

Realistic Mitchelmore (1978)
e
U)
Table 4 Pictorial Developmental Taxonomy of a Cylinder

Age Representation
scribbles Category 1 Toomela (1999)
0 early productions Caron-Pargue (1992)
2.6 - 3..9
ogn single units
basic features
orthographic projection
Category 2
Category 1
Toomela (1999)
Chen & Cook (1984)
Willats (1984)
0 single face Stage 1/Plane schematic Mitchelmore (1978)
3.10-7.11 solid schematic Stage 2 Mitchelmore (1978)

differentiated figures Category 3 Toomela (1999)
triple figure Caron-Pargue (1992)
no attempt to represent near-
far relationship Scale 2 Chen & Cook (1984)
triple figure Caron-Pargue (1992)

modification to curvature Scale 3 Chen & Cook (1984)
aa visible faces shown

double figure
hidden line elimination (HLE)
differentiated figures
correct top relationship
Pre-realistic
Category 3
Scale 4
Mitchelmore (1978)
Caron-Pargue (1992)
Freeman (
Toomela (1999)
)
Chen & Cook (1984)
0 integrated whole
faithful representation
correct perspective
double figure
Category 4
Realistic
Class 6
perspective
Toomela (1999)
Mitchelmore (1978)
Chen & Cook (1984)
Caron-Pargue (1992)
4^
Visualization
When children enter elementary school, they are faced with the facts that the tools
for learning are reduced to the two-dimensional realm, e.g. textbooks, writing, and
computer graphics. Further, in their mathematical classes they read and visualize
information about solids mostly from pictures in books (Ben-haim, Lappan & Houang,
1985). Ben-haim et al, found that students in grades five to eight have difficulties when
they are asked to determine the volume or number of cubes contained in a diagram of a
3D cube array. They suggested that the difficulties arise mainly out of the inability of
students to deal with two-dimensional pictures and the inability to visualize and count
hidden solids.
Based on the notion that concrete models and drawings can help students to
engage actively with geometric ideas and visualization, this literature review considers
visualization as a concept related to the visual output of drawing geometric solids. Carrol
(1993) and Haanstra (1996) defined visualization as a set of related capacities for
processing (remembering, matching, and transforming) visual spatial-information (forms,
shapes, positions). The NCTM Standards 2000 states that "spatial visualization involves
moving between two-and-three-dimensional shapes and their representations"
(http;//standards.nctm.org/document/chapter3/ geom.htm). Orde (1997) stated that
drawing and spatial/visual-perceptual skills require similar cognitive processes because
drawing as an output of visual perception facilitates the translation of an abstract image to
a concrete result.
The professional mathematical literature stresses that substantial numbers of
students have difficulty in visualizing three-dimensional objects and that many are unable
16
to identify how an object would look if viewed from another perspective (Izard, 1990).
This concern was one of the pivotal reasons to design a visualization section for this
study. In the visualization tasks the children used three-dimensional geometric solids to
perform the tasks of:
1) visually matching simple orthographic (orthogonal) drawings showing two
faces of selected solids with the solids’ counterparts;
2) drawing a free-hand 3D drawing from a model erected as a visual referent.
Visual matching
According to Willats, (1984) it is difficult for children to visually match an object
that has been drawn in the orthographic projection mode. An orthographic projection
mode is a line drawing that presents an object, viewed from various positions such as
front, top and side views (Giachino & Beukema, 1961), and without the illusion of shade,
perspective or texture. Teaching children how to view and draw the top, front, a lateral
and inner side of objects is frequently neglected in the elementary years; instead children
are exposed to geometrical shapes depicted in flat forms, e.g. worksheets and line
drawings showing only one face of the shape. This could create stereotyped notions of
how a square, triangle and circle should look. This fixation could be transferred to
geometric solid objects as well. Often children refer to a sphere as a circle, a cube as a
square, and a pyramid as a triangle (Deregwoski & Dziurawiec, 1994; Nicholls &
Kennedy, 1992), which are properties or names of the solids. The literature from the
educational practitioners gives advice to expose children to direct experiences with 3D
objects, so that they can see two-dimensional shapes as components of three-dimensional
objects (Bruni & Seidstein, 1990).
17
This study had a visual matching section where children matched four line
drawings of a cylinder, cone, square-base pyramid and a rectangular prism with their
solids’ counterparts. This section enabled students to visualize two dimensionality in
three-dimensional solids.
Free-hand 3D drawing
The dimension of spatial visualization gets even more complex when children
have to transform visual information into a drawing. Pictorial representation or drawing
is important in the field of education because it is rooted in its relation to writing, fine-
motor development, geometry, visual perception, and a complex coordination of
perceptual, motor, and cognitive skills (Caldwell & Moore, 1991; NCTM, 2000;
Trawick-Smith, 1997). Drawing is a component of the spatial sense skills that promotes
visual imagery in young children (Yackel & Wheatley, 1990). Furthermore, drawing can
be an alternative mode for the assessment of concept development in science classrooms
(Aguirre-Ortiz, 1998).
Due to their physical maturation and fine motor development, young children
often encounter difficulties representing graphic information (Trawick-Smith, 1997;
Willats, 1992). As previously stated, researchers have suggested that sequential
developmental stages affect children’s pictorial renderings. Piaget and Inhelder (1967)
described children's representation of space in drawing in terms of a series of stages
ranging from a stage where children scribbled with no purpose to a stage where they
graphically constructed a correct angular shape. For Piaget and Inhelder, drawing was an
act of representation and not perception. The child's limitation in drawing simple shapes
lay in the child's conceptual development of space and his/her inadequate mental tools for
spatial representation. In other words, children draw what they know rather than what
they see (Clements & Battista, 1992; Gardner, 1980, 1982; Goodenough, 1926; Guthrie,
1994). Piaget and Inhelder called this phenomenon intellectual realism. Intellectual
realism is the assumption that what children know about an object is their
conceptualization of it, and this conceptualization will develop as they add more details
of an object and learn more about it (Park & I, 1995; MacFee, 1967). An intellectual
realist drawing contains the structural essentials of solid objects and the child’s aim is to
draw reality rather than appearance in non-elaborated drawings (Hobbs and Pratt, 1978).
Contrary to the above researchers, both Arheim (1954) and MacFee (1967)
theorized that it is the children’s perception or visualization of an object that affects their
pictorial response. Arheim’s “Perceptual Theory” postulated that a child draws what
he/she sees and that adults perceive objects differently from children. Arheim asked
adults to draw a picture by holding a pencil between their toes rather than their fingers.
By asking his participants to use untrained muscles, he claimed to have eliminated the
potentially confounding variable of different levels of motor coordination between adults
and children. To him, a drawing was an act of perceptual representation, and there was
".. .no difference between the physical object and its image perceived by the mind"
(1954, p. 126). He found that the amount of detail and types of symbols used differed
between children and adults. Consequently, MacFee (1967) stated in her “Perception-
Delineation Theory” that the child uses his/her past experience and present interpretation
of visual information to create a drawing. Drawing ability depends more on how a child
sees than on how well his hand muscles are developed.
19
When perspective, proportion, and distance emerge at once in children’s drawings
is also the period when visual realism takes place (Piaget & Inhelder, 1967). Sutton and
Rose (1998) found that visual realism could be nurtured in young children's drawings if
they get appropriate cues. Along with verbal cues, object manipulation seems to enhance
spatial depiction in young children’s drawings (Guthrie, 1994). After manipulating a
three-dimensional object and allowing the child to draw, pictorial evidence of object
perception and fine motor ability in using a writing tool such as a pencil are apparent.
The task of drawing a three-dimensional object on a two-dimensional plane is a pictorial
rendering of the child's conception of the object’s structure and a demonstration of her/his
cognitive abilities to manipulate visual information on a two dimensional plane (Davis &
Gardner, 1993).
In an attempt to understand children's representational systems in drawing three-
dimensional objects, Park and I (1995) reviewed 34 empirical studies from 1967 to 1992
that considered children's drawing development in terms of the representation of three-
dimensional objects. In their meta-analysis Park and I found the following:
Of those 34 studies 21 were concerned with how children represent shapes, facets, angles,
edges structure and facial patterns of objects. It was found that the drawing categories
ranged from primitive to complex. That is, children might draw a solid object by showing
a single face of the object or a general impression of the object, or by depicting multiple
adjacent faces without evidence of spatial depth, or they might exhibit accurate
perspective drawing (p.43).
Deregwoski and Dziurawiec (1994) explained that the child's distorted drawing of
models is a tendency to depict solids’ typical contours only by perception. They argued
that a child's drawing of a solid is an outline of its typical contour—that is, the line on the
20
solid’s surface. Children have difficulties with the perception of solids because they try to
focus on the solids' typical contours. As they grow, their tendency to introduce
perspective in drawing increases.
Mitchelmore (1978) found that when young children draw geometric solids, they
naturally draw the faces viewed orthogonally or by a general outline of the figure. They
represent the solid with several of its faces, both visible and hidden, and these faces are
often not drawn in correct relation to each other. The drawings do not contain any depth
cues, and the side faces of the objects are distorted to fit a base line. Mitchelmore noticed
that children draw rectangular faces somewhat rectangular, triangular faces distorted to fit
a base line, and circular faces are represented by ellipses.
Nicholls and Kennedy (1992) investigated depth relationship or the illusion of
three-dimensionality in children's drawings. They collected drawings of cubes from over
a thousand children and found that over 80% of the 5-year-olds produced a single square
to represent a cube. They concluded that, among the population represented, only two
well defined stages of drawing a cube were prominent: the depiction of a cube as a square
and the depiction of a cube as a square with oblique lines.
So what role does visualization plays in the drawing of an object? One cannot
simply conclude that children have fixed notions of an object when they only depict the
object’s typical contour. Expanding on this point Freeman (1980) posed the following:
“What would a child have to know in order to draw, even crudely, in perspective? Four things are
essential. One is a grasp of the idea that the observer has to play an active role in construction so
that the final representation is a recombination of aspects of the real objects which explains their
structure and relationships. Another is some degree of abstract understanding that the best way of
explaining a scene is to rescale and even to violate isolated aspects of its appearance. Thirdly, he
has to have a grasp of measurement and geometry for these are the key aspects of scaling and
coordinating scales. Finally, he has to understand something about the structure of space, the
21
relationships in the “external frame of reference”, within which he occupies but one position
which is not a privileged one but one whose consequences have to be worked out in the context of
the external relationships.” (pp. 209-210)
The above literature presented studies and articles informing how children drew
particular solids. The arguments include theories of cognitive development, physical
maturation, perception versus drawing development and the fact that young children
often tend to draw solids by showing one single face of the object. The next section
discusses theoretical arguments about systems of representation used by young children
in their drawings—to understand why children draw the way they do.
Representational Strategies through Drawing
Spatial representation is generally described as a way to capture and represent
ideas. In the NCTM Standards 2000, representation "applies to processes and products
that are observable externally as well as to those that occur internally in the minds of
people doing mathematics (http;//standards.nctm.org/document/chapter3/rep.htm).”
According to Freeman (1980), children use representational strategies to resolve the
problems that arise in their drawings. Freeman calls representational strategies as systems
of representation, and also refers to children’s drawings as public instruments of
representation. He argues that children use drawing devices and drawing systems or
canonical relations when doing a three-dimensional representation. For him, drawing
devices are natural and innate pictorial techniques used by children to enhance their
knowledge or perception of the objects to be drawn, and these are often mistakenly
labeled as limited motor development.
Freeman (1980) studied four major drawing devices that children use in their
drawings. These drawing devices are 1) segregation (moving objects in a picture relative
22
to oneself), 2) hidden line elimination (HLE; partial occlusion or when intersecting lines
are not displayed in a drawing), 3) interposition (full representation of boundary lines
crossing one another or transparency) and 4) enclosure (the tendency to draw one object
entirely within the boundaries of another).
Along with drawing devices, children also use drawing systems when they draw a
three-dimensional object. Willats (1984) and Freeman (1980) have defined these drawing
systems as line projection categories in which children’s drawings can be classified. One
drawing system commonly used by children is the orthographic projection, the use of
parallel lines producing an impression of flatness. Another one is the horizontal oblique
projection, when two views, the front and the side, are put together. Third is the vertical
oblique projection, when the front and the top are combined. Fourth is the oblique
projection, when the frontal view has aspects of both the horizontal and vertical systems
and gives a strong impression of solidity. Finally, the linear perspective drawing system
is when the lines are used with reference to the spectator’s point of view, giving the
illusion of depth in a two-dimensional plane.
Another representational strategy defined within the boundaries of a drawing
system, and used by young children while drawing a three-dimensional object, is the
canonical view. Canonical view (conceptual or intellectual knowledge) is the depiction of
an object in an orientation that contains the important structural features necessary for
recognition (Freeman, 1980). Davis (1985) defined a canonical drawing as the notion that
a child draws what he/she knows rather than what he/she sees, basically what Piaget have
previously said. It is in the canonical relation that the notion of intellectual realism,
developed by Piaget and Inhelder (as cited in Freeman, 1980), evolves when they used
23
terminology such as “mental image”, “internal model” or “schema”. However, Freeman
stated that canonical projection is more than the sole representation held in memory by
the child, the general-purpose representation or a stereotyped drawing. It is a
representational strategy where the child mentally rotates the figure to produce a
depiction where nothing is hidden.
Finally, when researchers investigate spatial sense or spatial ability, the students’
sex is often one of the most commonly used independent variable. In several studies
about spatial abilities and achievement, males tended to outperform females in spatial
performance (Frydman & Lynn, 1992; Livesey & Intili, 1996; Robinson, Abbott,
Beminger, & Busse, 1996; Voyer, 1996). Other researchers, however, have concluded
that there is no justification for the statement that males excel in spatial abilities (Alyman
& Peters, 1993), even across cultures (Feingold, 1994). After performing 7,600 clinical
interviews to reexamine spatial ability within a Piagetian framework, MacArthur and
Wellner (1996) found poor spatial ability in both males and females overall. No
conclusive finding has been drawn from the research on the topic of differences based on
sex. The next section will focus on a variable that include two children’s background
characteristics: culture and language; because spatial sense has been mostly studied using
age and sex as determinant factors for children's performance.
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Young Children
Park and I (1995) suggested that "many researchers seem to assume that, because
their samples are from the same culture, the cultural characteristics of the subjects and
their relevant learning experiences are undifferentiated and, therefore, unimportant"
(p.54).). One of the purposes of this study was to examine children of diverse cultural
24
and linguistic backgrounds on spatial sense tasks, and what representational strategies
they used in their drawing of geometric solids.
The 2000 US Census found that 25% of the United States population that replied
to the Census 2000 belonged to a minority group that is people of non-European origin.
This finding is an important aspect to consider when reviewing research on mathematics
education and achievement, because the limited research that has been done with
minority students often focuses on the disparities found between Hispanic, African-
Americans and Native-Americans when compared to Anglo-Europeans and Asian-
Americans (Secada, 1992) rather than emphasizing in their similarities.
According to Hernandez (1999), studies on mathematical achievement have
consistently reported a marked difference between Hispanic students and the majority
group. Martin (2000) argued that the prevailing research on mathematical achievement
presents African-American and Hispanic students as lagging behind their White and
Asian counterparts, and that such research has provided little convincing evidence that
differences between the groups really exist. To Gonzalez (1995), this trend of
underachievement in mathematics tends to characterize minorities by a deficit model in
which their failure in schools and on standardized tests is related to their culture and
home environment.
Although a review of the literature revealed no recent studies on spatial sense,
specifically on tactile perception and visualization, that examined young children who are
culturally diverse, variables such as race-ethnicity, socio-economic status, gender and
language proficiency in mathematics achievement and spatial sense have been considered
25
by researchers, but with older subjects, 5th grade and above (Bishop, 1979; Johnson,
1989; Tate, 1997).
It is worthy to note that research on representational strategies has been conducted
with children whose origins are: African (Deregowski, 1976); Anglo-European/USA
(Lewis & Livson, 1967; Mitchelmore, 1987; Nicholls and Kennedy, 1992; Palmer,
Rosch, and Chase, 1981), Asian (Chen, 1985), Australia (Chen & Cook, 1984), European
(Caron-Pargue, 1992; Cox, 1986; Davis, 1985; Deregowski, & Dziurawiec, 1994;
Deregowski & Strang, 1986; Dziurawiec & Deregowski, 1992; Freeman, 1977, 1980,
1986, 1987; Klaue, 1992; Phillips, Hobbs and Pratt, 1978; Willats, 1977, 1984, 1987,
1997), Jamaican (Mitchelmore, 1978), Estonian (Toomela, 1999) and with blind children
(Kennedy, 1984), an their results are mixed.
The reviewed literature highlights the fact that is difficult for children to be able
to represent three-dimensionality in their drawings. Departing from a developmental
stance, with a cognitive and perceptual-spatial input in understanding children’s drawing
during the school years, this study attempted to merge both, the Piagetian and perceptual
frameworks. In conclusion, a limited number of studies have considered participants’
characteristics beyond age or sex in spatial abilities and drawing, and no research of
which the researcher is aware of, has been done with Hispanics or African-American
children in spatial sense and representational strategies in the United States of North
America. Therefore, this study was an attempt to address this issue. The following
paragraphs present the purpose, significance, research questions and a compilation of
terms addressed in the study.
26
General Statement o f the Problem
The purpose of this research was to study the performance of culturally and
linguistically diverse first grade students in spatial sense tasks and examine the
representational strategies used on some of these tasks. The students completed spatial
sense tasks of 1) tactile perception (the tactile perception of objects or shapes) and 2)
visualization (the ability to manipulate representations of visual objects). Tactile
perception tasks included the description and creation of tactile contour drawing of solids
hidden from sight. Visualization tasks included: a) visual matching of four orthographic
drawings, and b) the free-hand naturalistic drawing of a 3D model. The representational
strategies were examined through the tactile contour drawings of geometric solids hidden
from sight and the free-hand 3D drawing of a structure produced during the spatial sense
tasks. Representational strategies included two major components; 1) drawing systems,
and 2) drawing devices.
The children were classified by culture and language, and those whose native
language was English were labeled as monolinguals. The first grade students included
children whose ethnic and cultural backgrounds were as follows: Anglo-European
English monolingual (AEEM), African-American English monolingual (AAEM),
Hispanic English monolinguals (HEM) and Hispanic Spanish Dominant (HSD). They
were male and female first-grade students whose ages ranged from 6.5 to 7. The native
language, along with the cultural background of the students, was the compounded
independent variable, namely culture/language.
27
Significance o f the Study
The need for this study emanated from the discovery that literature concerning
spatial sense and representational strategies had been primarily conducted with: 1) the
middle class mainstream American and European population (Park and I, 1990), 2) with
children beyond fourth grade, and 3) with children from countries other than USA.
Therefore, this study attempted to 1) build upon limited research in this domain and, 2)
contribute empirical findings and results to the geometry and art curricula used in
elementary schools of the USA today. Because the school age population is increasingly
diverse, there is a need to know how culturally and linguistically diverse students respond
to the constructs of spatial sense and representational strategy. The following research
questions guided the study:
Research Questions:
Research Question 1: Are there significant differences in a tactile perception score
consisting of: a) description, and, b) tactile contour drawing of solids hidden from
sight, among the four-cultural/language groups?
Research Question 2: Are there significant differences in a visualization score
consisting of visually matching four orthographic drawings among the four-
cultural/language groups?
consisting of the free-hand 3D drawing among the four-cultural/language groups?
Research Question 4: What drawing systems are present in the contour and free
hand 3D drawings of the four-cultural/language groups?
28
Research Question 5: What drawing devices are present in the contour and free
hand drawings of the four-cultural/language groups?
Definition o f Terms
1. Canonical representation - This is the drawing of an object in an orientation
which displays the important structural features necessary for recognition
(Freeman, 1980). The canonical form of an object is the image that conforms to
the cultural canons for drawing the object (Hagen, 1985). It is a one-sided
representation where the characteristic and salient features are added (Selfe,
1985); and when the child draws what he knows rather than what he/she sees
(Davis, 1985).
2. Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children- Children who possess specific
traits related to age, gender, language, culture, ethnicity, and socio-economic level
when compared to the Anglo-European population or mainstream population
(Malave 1997; Rodriguez, 1998).
3. Drawing - The graphic representation of three-dimensional objects onto a two-
dimensional plane or surface (Haanstra, 1996).
4. Drawing devices - Natural and innate pictorial techniques used by children to
enhance their knowledge or perception of objects to be drawn, and often
mistakenly labeled as limited motor development. There are four major drawing
devices mentioned by Freeman (1980),
a. segregation (moving objects in a picture relative to oneself),
b. hidden line elimination (HLE; partial occlusion or intersecting lines
not displayed on a drawing)
29
c. interposition (full representation of boundary lines crossing one another or
transparency)
d. enclosure (tendency to draw one object entirely within the boundaries of
the other).
5. Drawing systems - Line projection categories in which children’s drawings can
be classified is based on Willats (1984, 1997)
a. orthographic projection - a line drawing that only shows the front, top or
face of an object without the pictorial illusion of shading, perspective or
texture. In an orthographic projection the projection rays are parallel and
intersect the picture plane at right angles in both the horizontal and the
vertical directions, giving an impression of flatness. This projection
system is also known as orthogonal drawing.
b. horizontal oblique projection - when two views, the front and the side, are
put together
c. vertical oblique projection - when the front and the top are combined
d. oblique projection - when the frontal view has aspects of both the
horizontal and vertical systems and gives a good impression of solidity
e. linear perspective - the lines are used with reference to the spectator’s
point of view, giving the illusion of depth in a two dimensional plane
(Willats, 1984; Freeman, 1980).
6. Dissection - the drawing of the object contains divisions, dividing the object into
three parallel sections (Nicholls & Kennedy, 1992)
30
7. Esquematization - a general sketch or outline of the figure where the object is
present by a single face or by a primitive geometric feature (Caron-Pargue, 1985;
Nicholls and Kennedy, 1992)
8. Face - The facets or sides of a geometric solid or object (Mitchelmore, 1978). The
flat surface of a three-dimensional object (Designing Spaces, 1995).
9. Free-hand 3D drawing: Is “the image resulting from processing and graphically
recording visual information in order to render an isomorphic relationship to an
observed object” (Moody, 1991, p.33). Drawing from life or drawing from still
life. The model in this type of drawing is a three-dimensional object and not a
photograph or line image of it.
10. Fold-outs - the features of the object are outlined and connected by lines that
stand for edges (Kennedy, 1984); sides are attached to the object, creating an
illusion of visual ‘explosion’ of the object (Caron-Pargue, 1992; Nicholls and
Kennedy, 1992)
11. Frontal vertex display - drawings in which the front vertex of the cube is
presented by a Y and base vertex by a T - junction (Nicholls and Kennedy, 1992)
12. Intellectual realism - A concept derived by the work of Luquet and explored
further on by Piaget and Inhelder, (1967). It describes the intermediate stage of
drawing by young children, when the child draws what he/she knows to be there
(Deregowski, 1976) rather than what he/she sees. The representation of solids
objects have their structural essentials (Phillips, Hobbs & Pratt, 1978). The
drawings under this stage exhibit traits considered as errors such as:
31
transparencies, mixed views, fold-out figures, and lack of proper occlusion on
parts that are not visible to the eye (Golomb, 2000).
13. Naive perspective - a halfway system between oblique projection and true
perspective (Willats, 1997); when the lines are used with reference to the
spectator’s point of view, giving the illusion of depth in an incipient manner
(Dubery & Willats, 1972).
14. Perspective - The illusion of three dimensions in a two dimensional plane created
by parallel lines intersecting a horizontal line in a connecting point (Edwards,
1989).
15. Representational strategies - The analysis of spatial skills and the
drawing process, in relation to drawing as a problem-solving exercise for the
child. Also known as “strategies of representation,” or the ways in which
children’s drawings are organized through a mental organization of the pictorial
renderings (Freeman, 1980, 1993)
16. Scribble - a not recognizable drawing or just marks on the paper (Toomela,
1999). The first step into the pictorial attitude. Scribbles are records, stipulation,
intentions of an intentional perceptual stance (Freeman & Cox, 1985)
17. Spatial Sense - A psychological and mathematical education concept
used in the interpretation and reflection of the physical environment through the
construction, representation and transformation of objects' images (NCTM, 1989).
18. Tactile-contour drawing - A coinage for this study that combines the definitions
of blind contour drawing, contour drawing, and tactile perception. It implies the
touching, sensing and handling of solids, objects or shapes not seen by the eye
32
and translated into a drawing, based on sensory and not visual information.
Tactile perception was previously known as haptic-perception. It was defined as
the perception of objects or shapes and the ability to situate the space only by
touch, bodily feelings and muscular sensations (Lowenfeld, 1957). According to
Campos, Lopez & Perez (1998) the haptic or tactile perception combines the
sensory receptors of the skin with the receptors in the muscles and tendons to
receive kinesthetic information. Piaget & Inhelder (1967) defined it as a
translation of tactile perceptions and movements into visual images. To Holmes,
Hughes, & Gunnar (1998) it is to recover 3-D information, or to see depth.
Blind contour drawing is a process of pure line drawing where one has to
focus on a single point and follow the contours of the object by not looking
at the figure but concentrating on the paper. Contour drawing has been described
by Sheehan (1997), as “means of describing form and its relationship to space
with an extremely economical use of line” (p. 10). For artists contour drawing is
defined as learning to see and draw through the sense of touch. R. Larmann, an
assistant professor of Art & Design at the University of Evansville (personal
electronic communication on July 22, 2003), expanded on the definition by
describing the complexity of the concept for this study:
“This term has even confused som e artists. Blind contour draw ing is the action o f
draw ing w ithout looking at the paper. T here really is nothing "blind" about it.
This process is a good way to sharpen visual observation skills through a process
wherein the artist is looking at a subject and draw ing it w ithout looking at the
paper. It sounds like w hat you are doing could have the sam e nam e, but w orks in
reverse. In your case, the subject is obscured from sight and the paper is in full
33
view. This process would not sharpen visual observation skills, but would help to
translate tactile sensations into visual form s.”
19. Visualization - A set of associated capacities for processing (remembering,
matching and transforming) visual spatial information (forms, shapes, positions)
(Carrol, 1993; Haanstra, 1996).). Visualization is related to drawing because
drawing as an output of visual perception facilitates the translation of an abstract
image to a concrete result (Orde, 1997).
Conclusion
This chapter presented a selection of the research and educational practitioner’s
literature available in the topics of spatial sense, representational strategies and diverse
children. Using the above literature as theoretical framework, this study was developed to
compare children of diverse culture and language, from a North-eastern part of the United
States, in spatial sense and to explore their representational strategies when drawing
solids. The methods developed to conduct the study are discussed in the next chapter.
CHAPTER II
Method
This chapter describes the design of this study. It includes the main findings of a
pilot study conducted prior to the study, description of the participants, the materials
used, the procedures followed for data collection, the methods of data analysis with a
description of the dependent and independent variables, and a detailed description of the
assessment instruments for this study.
Pilot Study
A series of tasks to measure spatial sense factors were designed and pilot tested
for this study with a sample of 19 children attending first grade. The samples for the pilot
study were bilinguals Hispanics and monolingual African-Americans children. The
independent variables were: sex and ethnicity. The spatial sense tasks were pilot tested in
a structured oral interview with fixed questions and probing designed for the study. The
pilot protocol interview generated oral and graphic information to address each spatial
sense task. The interviews were audiotape recorded. The data from the interviews were
transcribed and the drawings were collected and analyzed. The interviews were
conducted in English with the monolingual English students and in Spanish with the
students whose dominant language was Spanish. A bilingual doctoral graduate student
and the researcher evaluated the transcripts and the drawings using a second assessment
instrument designed and pilot tested for this study, a spatial sense-scoring rubric (Molina-
Serrano, 2000).
The spatial sense-scoring rubric was developed and validated under the guidance
of an alternate assessment scholar. The development of the protocol oral performance
35
interview and the spatial sense-scoring rubric were discussed prior to the administration
of the pilot study, and the researcher incorporated the changes proposed by the scholar
(see Appendix A, pp 109-114). Each criterion of the scoring rubric was pilot tested and
revised. The revisions of the assessment criteria were incorporated into a final scoring
rubric to be used in a subsequent study.
The outcomes of the pilot study are summarized as follows:
1. No significant differences in spatial sense were found among students when
they were compared by their sex or by their ethnicity. It was unknown if other
background characteristics, such as language or culture would have rendered
the same results, if children from the majority would have been included.
2. Revisions were incorporated in the assessment materials.
3. Responses and descriptions by the children were incorporated, as sample
responses, in the scoring rubric.
4. The assessment instruments designed for the pilot study needed further
validation with a larger population.
5. If further researcher was to be pursued an increment of the sample size to
increase the power was necessary to pick up a small or moderate difference in
population means (Harris, 1995).
Eight research questions guided the pilot study and the non-significant statistical
results are included in Table 5, as presented on the next page (p.36).
36
Table 5. Statistical Results of Pilot Study

Research Questions Two Alpha Compared Results
tailed level Means
t-Tests
1. Is there a difference in the t( 17) = a =.816 Male 6.33 No significant
performance of first grade male students .236 Female 6.20 difference
in a measure of spatial sense on tactile was found
perception when compared to first grade
female students?
2. Is there a difference in the t( 17) = a =.478 Hispanic 6.33 No significant

performance of first grade Hispanic -.725 African- difference
students in a measure of spatial sense on American 6.20 was found
tactile perception when compared to first
grade African-American students?
3. Is there a difference in the t(17) = a =.959 Male 2.33 No significant

performance of first grade male students .053 Female 2.30 difference
in a measure of spatial sense on was found
visualization, specifically in visual
matching, when compared to first grade
female students?
4. Is there a difference in the t( 17) = a =.328 Hispanic 2.50 No significant

performance of first grade Hispanic 1.06 African- difference
visualization, specifically in visual
matching, when compared to first grade
African-American students?
5. Is there a difference in the t(17) = a =.886 Male 8.66 No significant

performance of first grade male students -,146 Female 8.80 difference
in a measure of spatial sense on was found
visualization, specifically the
construction of a three dimensional
model, when compared to first grade
female students?
6. Is there a difference in the t(17) = a =.664 Hispanic 8.85 No significant

performance of first grade Hispanic ,442 African- difference
visualization, specifically constructing a
three-dimensional model when
compared to first grade African-
American students?
7. Is there a difference in the t( 17) = a =.941 Male 2.88 No significant
performance of first grade male students -.075 Female 2.90 difference
on the drawing of geometric solids, was found
when compared to first grade female
students?
8. Is there a difference in the a =.450 Hispanic 2.92 No significant
II
performance of first grade Hispanic African- difference

drawing, when compared to first grade
African-American students?
37
Procedures fo r Data Collection
Participants
The participants for this study were 40 first-grade students, male and female, from
inner city elementary public schools. They comprised a sample of convenience: 10
English-dominant Hispanics, 10. Spanish-dominant Hispanics, and 10 African-American
and 10 Anglo-European English monolinguals, between the ages of 6 and 7. The
children received written permission from their parents to participate in this study. The
federal subsidized school food program (free breakfast and lunch) was used as a guide to
determine the homogeneity of the participants’ socioeconomic levels.
Entry
Formal entry approval was requested from the Buffalo Public School’s
Superintendent, several inner city elementary school principals, and first grade teachers
(see Appendixes B and C, pp. 115-118). Approval for an investigation involving human
subjects was requested and granted from the State University of New York at Buffalo to
properly conduct the study (see Appendix D, pp. 119-120). A request for participation
letter was sent home for each first grade student in the first grade classrooms. The letters
solicited the cooperation of parents and students with the study, and were written in
English and Spanish (Appendixes E-F pp. 121-126). The children who participated in the
study were the ones whose parents gave written permission, by using a consent form,
provided in English and Spanish (see Appendixes G-H, pp. 127-130). Since the formal
entry from the School Superintendent was granted at the end of the school semester, data
were collected during the Summer 2002, and the interviews (see Appendixes I-J, pp. 131-
147) were performed in the subjects’ homes, normally at the dining table. Data collection
38
lasted from June 2002 through August 2002. The children were either just entering into
first grade or finishing first grade. The researcher visited the home settings of the
participants until the 40 oral performance interviews were completed.
Variables
The dependent variables of this study relate to the spatial sense ambit, and these
were tactile-perception, visualization and drawing. Considering that spatial sense
includes, but is not limited to, the interpretation and reflection of the physical
environment through the construction, representation and transformation of object’s
images, the following subcategories of this major concept are described, and measured as
follows:
1. Tactile Perception. Continuous. It refers to a total score of responses that
occurred during the sensing, describing, naming, identifying, quantifying, and the
labeling of two geometric solids hidden from sight: a 1” x 3” cylinder and a 2” x 2” cube.
The oral description followed a session of tactile contour drawing, to evaluate the child’s
visual perception of the solids hidden from sight. Eight points were the maximum
allowed score based on questions generated for the task. It was measured by using an
Analysis of One-Factor Variance.
2. Visualization/Visual Matching. Continuous. It refers to the ability to identify a
three dimensional solid and visually matching it with its two dimensional referent. Four
points were the allotted score for this section, based on the correct or incorrect responses
given by the children, when visually matching orthographic views of two sides of the
following solids: a square prism, a “2 x 2” cylinder, a cone and a square based pyramid. It
was measured by using an Analysis of One-Factor Variance.
39
3. Visualization/Free-hand drawing o f a 3D model. Continuous. This variable
evaluated the child’s ability to render a free-hand drawing of a 3D model of geometric
solids, by displaying the correct amount of solids, in a vertical fashion as the model and if
the model conforms with cultural canons (see Appendix I, pp. 131-139 for in-depth
description.) It had an assigned score of three (3) points and was measured by using an
Analysis of One-Factor Variance.
Other dependent variables considered for this study were encompassed under
Representational Strategies: Drawing Systems and Drawing Devices. These other
variables rendered non-parametric results and they were measured in terms of frequencies
of percentages.
The independent variable contained two components: culture and language, and
for the purpose of this study, was labeled: cultural/linguistic. The levels of this
cultural/linguistic variable described the ethnicity and language spoken by the four major
groups that participated in this study as follows:
Levels of the Cultural/Language Independent Variable
• Anglo-European/English Monolinguals
• African-American/English Monolinguals
• Hispanic/English Dominant
• Hispanic/Spanish Dominant
These variables were measured in their respective components using a scoring rubric
designed for this study called Scoring Rubric for Spatial Sense and Representational
Strategies (See Appendix K, pp. 147-160). The scoring rubric was a task performance
checklist that resulted in the evaluation of the elements of the spatial sense and
40
representational strategies tasks achieved by each child. The rubric assigned scores to the
quantitative variable and provided classification for the qualitative variables.
Materials
A set of eighteen wooden geometric solids was used. The solids of this set
measured from 1” width to 3 V2” in length. The 18 wooden solids were: a 1” x 3”
cylinder, a cube, a sphere, a cone, a square prism, an equilateral triangular prism, a square
pyramid, a 2" x 2" cylinder, a hemisphere, an isosceles right triangular prism, a parabola-
cut cone, an ellipsoid, a triangular pyramid, a plane cone, an axis-cut cone, and
rectangular, hexagonal and octagonal prisms. An empty 32-ounce coffee can was used for
the tactile perception task. The can was covered with a white poster board strip, and lined
inside with a 2” thick foam at its lip. The foam had a 5” diameter hole cut in the center.
A piece of stretch fabric was placed over the foam and through the center of the hole. The
fabric hanged inside the can to block any view the students might have of the solids at the
bottom of the can. The fabric went approximately half way down the can and had a
funnel-like end. It also clung to the students’ wrist once their hand was in the can. Two
wooden geometric solids, a 1" x 3" cylinder and a 2" x 2" cube were placed inside the can
for the tactile perception task.
Paper and pencil were provided for the children to draw with. A cassette audio
recorder was used to record the conversation between the researcher and the students
during the activities. Seven line drawings were used for all the visualization tasks. The
children and the researcher used the dining table of each household, and the caregivers
ensured quietness, so no distractions from siblings during the interview were allowed.
41
Oral and Performance Interview fo r Spatial Sense Tasks
Children completed spatial tasks and the interviewer asked questions related to
the tasks. The tasks consisted of a combination of performance and written exercises. The
tasks used were adapted from the education practitioners and research literature on spatial
sense. Tasks from Piaget and Inhelder's (1956) tactile perception study and from Chen's
(1985) study on drawing three-dimensional geometric solids were modified for use in this
study. The visualization tasks used in this study evolved from the available literature in
mathematics education in spatial sense and visualization (Bruni and Seidenstein, 1990;
Del Grande, 1990; Izard, 1990). Only the components that focused on tactile perception,
visualization and drawing were used, modified and adapted for this study.
The spatial sense tasks were administered using the structured interview protocol
pilot tested for this study and translated to Spanish (see Appendixes J-K, pp.140-160).
Each child was interviewed away from his/her siblings in a quiet area of the home. Each
child completed his/her tasks under the direction of the researcher in a one-on-one
setting. The completion of the tasks lasted from 15 to 20 minutes. The children’s
comments and responses to the researcher questions were audio recorded. Field notes
were taken during the silent periods when the participants appeared to be concentrating
on the completion of the tasks. Each interview was conducted in the child's dominant
language, either English or Spanish, to minimize extraneous language variables.
According to Rodriguez (1998) every test given in a person's second language becomes a
language or literacy test for non-native speakers.
The oral performance interview included four different spatial sense tasks: one of
tactile perception, two of visualization, and one free-hand drawing of geometric solids
42
assembled as a 3D model. The oral performance interview was conducted concurrently
with the spatial sense tasks. After the students performed the specified tasks and the
drawing of solids, the researcher asked the children questions related to the tasks. The
following section describes in detail how the spatial sense tasks were selected from the
literature and administered to the children.
Tactile Perception Tasks
The task of tactile perception used in this study varies from Piaget and Inhelder's
(1956) task, in that, the children in this study worked with wooden solids, while Piaget
and Inhelder provided flat shapes to their subjects. This modification introduced the
children to the geometric solids they were going to use in the subsequent spatial sense
tasks. The rest of the procedure in this task remained similar to Piaget and Inhelder's
study.
In the first part of the tactile perception task each child was asked to place the
hand he/she did not use for writing inside of a special can prepared for this task, where
two wooden geometric solids, a 1" x 3" cylinder and a 2" x 2" cube were placed. The
child was asked the following:
1. “Can you show me which hand do you use for writing?”
2. “Will you please put your other hand in this can?”
Students were asked to recognize, describe, quantify and draw the solids that they were
touching but not seeing. During this task the children were asked questions about what
they were sensing inside of the can. For example, for the recognition, description and
quantification of the solids the researcher asked the following:
43
3. “Now tell me, what is in the can?” The researcher used the child’s responses to
label the solids from that point on. For example, if the child labeled the solids as blocks
or "thingies" the researcher used those names for the solids. The researcher asked the
child to describe the solids he/she was touching.
4. “Can you describe what are you touching?”
6. “How m an y ________ are you touching?"
7. “What kind of material is/that are/those_________ made of?”
8. What (is that)/(are th o se)________ made for?
Finally, the child performed the solids’ tactile contour drawing section when asked the
following:
9. “Without taking your hand out of the can, can you draw me a picture of what
you are touching without looking at it/them? Use your free hand.”
After completing the tactile-perception task, the child was allowed to take out the
geometric solids from the can and to compare them with his/her drawings. The child was
asked the following about the solids he/she drew:
10. “O f that/those solid/s that you drew, tell me which one is this one?
(Interviewer pointed to the cylinder.). What about this one? (Interviewer pointed
to the cube.)”
Normally, in this section the children spontaneously compared the two solids with things
they had seen in their classrooms or gave information about similar objects to the two
solids. Then they were presented with the box that contained the other 16 wooden
geometric solids. Included in the box was one of each of the following: a sphere, a cone,
a square prism, an equilateral triangular prism, a square pyramid, a 2" x 2" cylinder, a
44
hemisphere, an isosceles right triangular prism, a parabola-cut cone, an ellipsoid, a
triangular pyramid, a plane cone, an axis-cut cone, a rectangular, a hexagonal and an
octagonal prism. See Figure 1, on the next page displaying a sample of 12 solids used.
11
i
V
*
Figure 1. Sample of Geometric Solids Used
The child was allowed to manipulate the solids to satisfy any curiosity about any
unfamiliar solids. While the child was touching and viewing the solids, the researcher
asked the following:
11. “Have you seen those before?” (referring to the geometric solids) “W here?”
12. “What do you think these things are made for?”
Once the child appeared to be familiarized with the solids the researcher
proceeded to the next task. The child was not rushed during the course of the interview,
and enough time was allowed for each child to play with the solids prior to the next tasks
of visualization. The following section describes the visualization tasks of visual
matching, constructing a three-dimensional structure and free-hand drawing of a three-
dimensional model.
Visualization Tasks
Visual matching
The first visualization task consisted of a visual-matching component. It was
adapted from the professional literature on spatial sense, mainly from two mathematics
education practitioners, Bruni and Seidenstein (1990). Bruni and Seidenstein asked
children to visually match line drawings of solid faces with actual solids. They used cards
that had the solids presented in different positions. Like Bruni and Seidenstein, this study
presented the children with line drawings (orthographic), but it differed in that the
drawings used displayed only two views of the solids in a vertical array, 1) top and front
and 2) bottom and front.
In this visual-matching task the children were required to match the drawing with
the corresponding geometric solids. This task had four orthographic drawings, portraying
two views of the following wooden geometric solids: 1) a square prism, 2) a 2" x 2"
cylinder, 3) a square pyramid, and 4) a cone (see Figures 2 through 5, pp.46-48). The
orthographic drawings had no shading, perspective or illusion of three-dimensionality.
Each orthographic drawing was presented one at a time and only after the child
acknowledged that he/she had found the corresponding solid. The task was presented as
follows:
13. “As you can see, some objects have a top and a bottom that are quite different,
like this one (showed the parabola-cut cone solid to the child). Others have a
front, a top and a bottom that are also different, like this one (showed the
hemisphere to the child).”
46
13. “I am going to show you a few pictures of some blocks that we have here.
These pictures show either the top or the bottom, and the front of certain blocks of
this box (pointed to the box where the rest of the geometric wooden solids were).
You have to tell me which one of these blocks matches the picture. Remember
that only one block matches the picture.”
14. The interviewer presented the drawing of the rectangular prism to the child
and asked: “Which block matches this picture?”(see Figure 2 below)
Figure 2. Orthographic view of a rectangular prism
If the child presented two or more blocks as an answer, the researcher told the child:
"Remember that only one block matches the picture". This statement was continually
stressed by the researcher during the task, but only if the child presented more than one
solid as the answer. After this part was complete, the researcher presented the
orthographic drawing of the 2"x2" cylinder to the child (Figure 3, below) and asked the
following:
14. “Which block matches this picture?”
47
o
Figure 3. Orthographic view of a 2" x 2" cylinder.
If the child presented two blocks as an answer, the researcher reminded the child:
“Remember that only one block matches the picture.” The researcher showed the child
the next stimulus, the orthographic drawing of the cone (Figure 4, below). This figure
was presented in a different orientation from the first two to see if the child was able to
select the corresponding solid regardless of the illustration's rotation. The picture
displayed the front and the bottom of the solid as if the solid was placed horizontally. The
researcher asked each child the corresponding question:
Figure 4. Orthographic view of two sides of a cone.
After the child completed the previous matching of the cone, the researcher
proceeded to present the last orthographic drawing for the first part of the visualization
48
task, the square pyramid (Figure 5, next page). The square pyramid also displayed the
front and bottom of the solid as if the solid was placed horizontally. The researcher asked
the child the following:
Figure 5. Orthographic view of a square base pyramid.
Once the child completed the visual-matching task, the researcher continued with
a transitional task where the child had to build a three-dimensional model from a two
dimensional referent. The children were asked to construct three-dimensional forms after
viewing three orthographic drawings of three different models, by using some of the 18
geometric solids provided for the tasks. This transitional task was based on Del Grande
(1990) and Izard’s (1990) spatial sense tasks of building structures with wooden cubes.
They designed cards depicting block models of cubes and expected children to make
models similar to the ones shown on the card. The variations between Del Grande and
Izard’s and this present study were, the use of line orthographic (orthogonal) drawings
instead of cards with oblique drawings (illusion of depth or perspective) and the variety
49
of solids to choose from. In the present study three line drawings of three different
models, displaying a variety of geometric shapes and portraying only their front views
(orthogonal), were presented to the children. The researcher made this decision to achieve
consistency in the type of line drawings the children were going to be exposed to. This
section was a transitional exercise to have children become familiarized with the solids in
terms of touching and knowing their physical characteristics (see Appendix I, p p l3 1-139)
for a full description of the exercise, which correspond to interview’s questions 18-20).
Free-hand 3D drawing
The final task of the visualization section and the study was called “free-hand 3D
drawing”. It was based on Chen's (1985), study of representational drawings of solid
objects. In contrast to Chen, this study provided the actual model of solids to be
reproduced. Chen provided her participants with drawings of geometric solids to copy
and draw but not the actual solids. The children used pencil and paper provided by the
researcher to sketch their 3D drawing of the model.
Not providing a pictorial referent for the model, the researcher asked:
17. “Can you draw this figure by looking at it?”
After the child finished drawing the model, the researcher thanked the child for his/her
participation, and rewarded him/her with a small-age and developmentally appropriate
gift1.
The researcher transcribed each participant’s oral performance interview and the
field notes onto a set of raw-data forms. The interviews conducted in Spanish were
1 Funding to cover the expenses of the educational toys was provided by the Mark Diamond Research
Foundation, a grant for doctoral students’ dissertations, sponsored by the Graduate Student Association and
the University at Buffalo.
50
translated into English by the researcher and reviewed by a doctoral student native
speaker of English. The drawings of the children were attached to the set of raw-data
documents and were kept as study artifacts. These drawings constituted the qualitative
data part of this study. The transcribed data provided the basis for the measurement that
followed in the form of a spatial sense scoring and representational scoring rubric.
Instruments of Assessment
The oral performance interview was used to gather oral and pictorial data during
the administration of the tasks. The responses to the spatial sense tasks were scored in
accordance with the elements of each task measured in the spatial sense scoring rubric
previously pilot tested and modified for use in this study (see Appendix K, pp. 147-160
for a copy of the rubric ). The coding and scoring of data (i.e. children’s performance and
responses) were designed after a review of the alternative assessment literature (Doran,
Chan & Tamir, 1998) and after the revisions from the pilot study were made.
The spatial sense and representational strategies scoring rubric was used with the
40 participants, and it scored and coded students’ verbal performance and pictorial
responses to the spatial sense tasks of this study. The assessment criteria used in the
scoring rubric on spatial sense were based on a tactile perception study (Piaget &
Inhelder, 1967), educational practitioner activities (Bruni & Seidenstein, 1990; Del
Grande, 1990; Izard, 1990) and a study on the drawing of geometric solids (Chen, 1985).
A revised form of the representational strategies items in the scoring rubric was
developed after a careful review of literature on representational strategies and geometric
solids. A compilation of guides, scales and assessment tools on drawings of geometric
solids was revised and considered, in order to develop a unique classification scale on the
representational strategies of this study. Items for the representational strategies were
adapted from the literature on young children drawing geometric solids (Caron-Pargue,
1992; Chen, 1985; Chen & Cook, 1984; Cox, 1986; Cox & Lambon, 1996; Davis, 1985;
Deregowski, 1976; Deregowski, & Dziurawiec, 1994; Deregowski & Strang, 1986;
Dziurawiec & Deregowski, 1992; Freeman, 1977, 1980, 1986, 1987; Klaue, 1992;
Kennedy, 1984; Lewis & Livson, 1967; Mitchelmore, 1978, 1987; Nicholls and
Kennedy, 1992; Palmer, Rosch, and Chase, 1981 Phillips, Hobbs and Pratt, 1978;
Toomela, 1999; Willats, 1977, 1984, 1987, 1997).
The spatial sense section of the scoring rubric included a variety of possible child
response samples that were to be accepted and scored as correct. The scoring rubric was
the instrument used by the researcher to judge the oral and pictorial performance of the
participants in the spatial sense tasks and to classify their representational strategies. Each
part was scored independently, and the maximum possible total score was 15 for the
spatial sense portion. Table 6, page 52, displays the possible scores and the total scores
for the spatial sense tasks scored in the scoring rubric. Tables 7 through 9, pp. 58-60,
display the classification criteria and the visual representation of the representational
strategies section in the scoring rubric to evaluate the contour and free-hand drawings.
Table 6
Possible Scores of the Spatial Sense Tasks in the Spatial Sense Scoring Rubric
Spatial Sense Tasks

Tactile Perception Task Possible Scores
1. D escription (labeling, quantifying, identifying) 6

2. Tactile contour draw ing o f Solids 2
Total M ax Points 8
Visualization Tasks Possible Score

1) Visual m atching draw ings w ith solids
* rectangular prism 1
* 2” x 2” cylinder 1
* cone 1
* square base pyram id 1
Total M ax Points 4
Possible Score
2) Free-hand draw ing o f a three dim ensional m odel
• displays correct am ount o f solids 1
• solids are in vertical array 1
• solids conform s w ith cultural canons 1
Total M ax Points 3
Spatial Sense Scoring R ubric

Total M ax Score 15
53
Scoring the Tactile Perception Tasks
The tactile perception tasks in this study used geometric solids instead of flat
geometrical shapes. The researcher assigned one point for each correct answer. A
maximum of eight points for the tactile perception task was awarded. The main objective
of this part was to evaluate the child's ability to make visual and pictorial inferences
based on tactile and cutaneous information. The interview questions that produced a
score for this section were:
“3.) “What do you think is in the can?”
“4)... “Can you describe what are you touching?”
“5) “How m an y _________ are you touching?”
“6) What kind of material is/that or are/those made of?
“7) What is/that or are/those______made for?
These questions pertained to recognition and description. The description
construct included: kind, name, specification, particulars or graphics of the geometric
solids. The child was supposed to recognize the two solids inside the can by touching
them with one hand. The two solids were a 1" x 3" cylinder and a 2" x 2" cube. The
assigned score was one point for each valid observation up to a maximum of 6. A variety
of geometrical descriptions for the 1” x 3” cylinder, such as “cylinder”, “three sides”,
“circle”, “two circles”, “line”, “one”, “block”, “shape” and “two faces” were acceptable,
as well as related geometrical descriptions for the cube such as: “cube” , “square”, “dice” ,
“six sides”, “one face”, block” and “shape”. Other geometrical related descriptions for
both solids were given only one point if these were: “blocks”, “shapes”, “solids”,
“geometric solids”, “objects”, “two”, “building blocks”, and “wooden blocks”.
54
In this tactile section the child gave tactile related descriptions for each solid
that earned him/her a point for each solid described. A sample of acceptable tactile
related responses for the 1” x3” cylinder were: “roll”, “roller”, “lip-gloss”, “chalk”,
“crayon”, “snout”, “stick”, “long”, “round” and “thin”. The cube also had a sample of
acceptable tactile responses, such as, “edgy”, “splintery”, “chunky”, “box”, “pointy” and
“edges” . And both solids were described by using the following tactile related
descriptions: “things”, “wood”, “soft”, “smooth”, “hard”, “objects”. No points were given
if the descriptions did not resemble the solids’ properties.
The last part of the tactile perception task score dealt with drawing the solids
hidden inside the can (tactile/contour drawing):
“8. W ithout taking your hand out, can you draw me a picture of
what you are touching without looking at it/them? Use your free hand.”
The child was allowed a maximum of two points for this part. The criterion was
based on the number of attempts made by the student using his/her free hand to draw the
solids inside the can while sensing the solids with his/her other hand. The child was given
two (2) points if he/she attempted to draw two solids. If the child attempted to draw one
solid, 1 point was given. No points were given if the child did not draw the solids hidden
inside the can or if the child’s drawing had no resemblance to the solids hidden from
sight (e.g. the child drew a doll).
Scoring the Visualization Tasks
The visualization tasks were visual matching and free-hand 3D drawing of a
three-dimensional model. The objectives of these tasks were: first to evaluate the child's
ability to identify a three-dimensional solid, and visually match it to its two-dimensional
55
referent, and second to evaluate the child's pictorial rendering of a three-dimensional
structure or visual model into a two-dimensional plane. Four points were assigned to the
first part of this task because there were four visual referents for the child to visually
match and 3 points were given to the free-hand 3D drawing of a three-dimensional
model, because there were three criteria points to be considered.
In this visual matching task the child was expected to match orthographic views of
the top and front of a rectangular solid, a 2" x 2" cylinder, a cone and a square base
pyramid as displayed in Figure 6, below.
- square prism - cone
- 2" x 2" cylinder - square base pyramid
Figure 6. Orthographic drawings of four solids
The criterion was based on the child’s selection of the appropriate solid and the
correct matching with its two dimensional referent. One point was allowed for each
visual matching of the two sides displayed of the geometric solids’ orthographic drawings
56
(see objects in Figure 16, previous page). No credit was given if the child used more than
one solid for each visual representation.
The purpose of the last visualization task was to evaluate the child's pictorial
rendering of a three-dimensional structure or visual model into a two-dimensional plane.
The child’s drawing was based on Model B-4, (see Figure 7, below). The criteria to score
this task were based on the following questions: 1) does the drawing display the correct
amount of solids? 2) Are the solids drawn in a vertical array as in the model or with the
illusion of depth (visual realism)? 3) Are the solids represented conform to cultural
canons by using a canonical representation or intellectual realism (i.e. hemisphere as
circle, cube as square)?
Figure 7. Line representation of Model B-4
Three (3) points were given to the students if the above elements were present in
the drawing, two (2) points if two elements were present in the drawing and one (1) point
if one element was present in the drawing.
Classification o f Representational Strategies
The next section of the scoring rubric classified the children’s contour and free
hand drawings of geometric solids. A representational strategies guideline was designed
for this study. The criteria for the representational strategies were described and visual
examples of the items are provided here. With the use of this assessment rubric, the
children’s drawing were classified in various categories, and depending on the
particularities or drawing features each pictorial response presented. The criteria used for
these classifications emerged from the representational strategies research literature
discussed in chapter 2. Tables 7 through 9 on pages 58-60, display the representational
strategies criteria for pictorial classification of the students’ drawings produced as part of
the tactile perception and visualization tasks.
58
Table 7
Drawing Systems and Drawing D evices in Tactile Contour Drawings o f a Cube
Representational Strategies in Tactile contour drawings of a Visual Representation
Cube
a. Drawing Systems - Cube
(1) schematic/orthographic - the solid (cube) is presented by a
single face or by a general outline of the figure (Mitchelmore,
1978)
(2) Projective properties - a single square and a side extending
0 □
either horizontally or vertically (Mitchelmore, 1987); the front the
top are combined (Willats, 1984, 1997); two views, the front and
the side, are put together (Willats, 1984, 1997)
(3) Naive perspective - incipient attempt to use the lines with

me
60
reference to the spectator’s point of view giving the illusion
of depth (Dubery & Willats, 1972)
e
(4) Isometric projection - the top, side and front views drawn
at equal angles to each other (Dubery & Willats, 1972)
(5) dissection - a drawing of a square that contains divisions

inside the square (Nicholls & Kennedy, 1992
(6) Intellectual knowledge - drawing has one sided representation
tty
where the characteristic and salient features are added (Freeman,
1980); drawing shows all areas of the solid; child draws what is
known to be there (Deregowski, 1977)
b. Drawing devices - Cube

(1) fold-out - features of the solid (cube) are outlined and
connected by lines that stand for edges of the object
(Kennedy, 1984)
(2) frontal vertex with Y or T junction - drawing in which the

front vertex of the cube is represented by a Y and a base
vertex by a T junction (Nicholls & Kennedy, 1992)
(3) Dissection - drawing of a square containing divisions

inside of the square (Nicholls & Kennedy, 1992)
13El
59
Table 8
Drawing Systems and Drawing Devices in Tactile Contour Drawings of a Cylinder
Representational Strategies in Tactile contour drawings of a Visual Representation

Cylinder
a. Drawing Systems - Cylinder
(1) Schematic/orthographic- the solid (cylinder) is presented by a
single face or by a general outline of the figure (Mitchelmore,
1978); drawing shows only the front top or side faces of the
cylinder (Willats, 1984, 1997)
Qo0°
(2) Oblique or projective properties - when two views, the
CD
l2
front and the side are put together or when the top and the
CD,
CD
front are combined (Willats, 1984, 1997)
(3) Naive perspective - a primitive illusion of depth in a two-

dimensional plane (Willats, 1997)
u tf
(4) Intellectual realism - drawing has one sided
representation where the characteristic and salient features are
added (Freeman, 1980); drawing shows all areas of the solid;
child draws what is known to be there (Deregowski, 1977)
8a
b. Drawing Devices - Cylinder
(1) fold-out- features of the solid (cylinder) are outlined and
connected by lines that stand for edges of the object (Kennedy,
1984); slanted sides are attached to the rectangular area of the
cylinder creating an illusion of visual “explosion” (Caron-
Pargue,
<§> <8>
1985; Nicholls & Kennedy, 1992)
(2) dissection - drawing of cylinder contains line divisions,

dividing the object into three parallel sections (Nicholls &
Kennedy, 1992)
@n
60
Table 9
Drawing Systems and Drawing D evices in a Free-hand 3D Drawing
Representational Strategies in a free-hand 3D drawing Visual Representation
a. Drawing Systems Indicators - Free-hand 3D Drawing
(1) Scribble- a not recognizable drawing (Toomela, 1999) 0
$
(2) orthographic projection or the use of parallel lines
producing an impression of flatness (Willats, 1984, 1997)
a
ssgg
(3) projective properties - when two views, the front and the
side are put together or when the top and the front are
combined (Willats, 1984, 1997)
§
(4) naive perspective - a primitive illusion of depth in a two-
S
(5) Intellectual Realism drawings have one-sided
representation where the characteristic and salient features are
added
(Phillips, Hobbs & Pratt, 1978)
b. Drawing Devices Indicators - Free-hand Drawing 3D

Model Q
(1) segregation or moving objects in a picture relative to
oneself (Freeman, 1980)
s
(2) hidden line elimination (HLE) or partial occlusion when
intersecting lines are not displayed in the drawing
(Freeman, 1980)
(3) interposition or transparency - the full representation of

boundary lines crossing one another (Freeman, 1980)
1
61
Inter-rater Reliability
The researcher acted as the primary rater. Two experts, one in the educational and
one in the engineering field, were trained to act as additional raters for this study. The
raters received training to learn how to use the spatial sense and representational
strategies-scoring rubric on the interview transcriptions and children's drawings. The
training consisted of an in-depth explanation of the assessment criteria used for each part
of the rubric. Additionally, there was discussion on each element of the interview
administered to the children.
Along with the researcher the expert in the educational field rated the spatial
sense part 2, and the expert in the engineering field rated both the contour and free-hand
3D drawings respectively, using the representational strategies section of the scoring
rubric. The raters used the Spatial Sense and Representational Scoring Rubric to review
and score each transcript, and to classify each drawing independently. For the first
section of the scoring rubric, pertaining to spatial sense, the educational expert
established an agreement of random selection prior to the review of the data. The
educational expert selected 21 cases randomly from the 40 interviews and rated them
independently using the Spatial Sense Scoring Rubric. The researcher rated all the
interviews and compared the results of the 21 cases with her scores. The pearson product-
moment (r) was used to find the reliability correlations between the raters in the three
sections of the spatial sense part of the interview. An alpha level of .05 was used in all
tests. The critical r or table value for the degrees of freedom of 19 (df=N-2) was .443. For
the tactile perception section the calculated r was 1.311; for the visualization/visual
2
Funding to cover the expenses of the educational rater was provided by the Mark Diamond Research
Foundation, a grant for doctoral students’ dissertation sponsored by the Graduate Student Association and
the University at Buffalo.
62
matching r was 1; and for the visualization/free-hand 3D drawing r was .447. Although
the results were larger than the critical/table value of r (.443), in order for a correlation
coefficient to be statistically significant it has to be based on a reasonably large sample
size (Harris, 1995). However, for this study these results seem to support the notion of an
adequate reliability for the spatial sense part of the scoring rubric among the raters.
The representational strategies section of the scoring rubric was mainly used to
classify children’s drawings contour and naturalistic depictions into drawing categories.
The researcher and the engineer analyzed this part. This section of the scoring rubric was
divided into three categories: 1) drawing systems, 2) drawing devices, and 3) other. Using
the point-to-point agreement for this section, the following percentages of agreements
between the raters were obtained for each category: 1) drawing systems, 95%, 2) drawing
devices, 97%, and 4) other, 100%. The scoring of the data generated by the raters was
used in the analyses presented in the next chapter.
Variables and Research Questions
Independent variable
The independent variable contained two components: culture and language, and
for the purpose of this study, was labeled as culture/language. The levels of this variable
describe the culture and language spoken by the four major groups that participated in
this study as follows:
Levels of the Culture/Language Independent Variable
• Anglo-European/English Monolinguals (AEM)
• African-American/English Monolinguals (AAM)
• Hispanic/English Dominant (HEM)
63
• Hispanic/Spanish Dominant (HSD)
Dependent variables and research questions
The major construct of the study was spatial sense. Spatial sense is a
psychological and mathematical education concept used in the interpretation and
reflection of the physical environment through the construction, representation and
transformation of objects' images (NCTM, 1989). For this study spatial sense was studied
through three related dependent variables: 1) tactile perception, visualization/visual
matching and visualization/free-hand 3D drawing.
The first dependent variable was tactile perception. It contained the touching,
sensing and handling of solids, objects or shapes not seen by the eye and translated into a
drawing, based on sensory and not visual information. Tactile perception in this study
was studied through a task of description (sensing, describing, identifying, naming, and
labeling two wooden solids: a 2” x 2” cube and a 1” x 3” cylinder) and through a tactile
contour drawing of the solids hidden from sight. This was a continuous variable that
produced a score of 8 points in a scoring rubric later used in the Analysis of One-Factor
Variance. The research question for the haptic-perception variable was as follows:
consisting of: a) description, and, b) tactile contour drawing of solids hidden from sight,
among the four-cultural/language groups?
The second dependent variable was Visualization/Visual Matching. Visual
matching was defined as the ability to identify, select and match three-dimensional
objects after seeing their graphic depiction. The pictorial referents used to provide a
64
combined score of 4 points for visual matching included four orthographic or line
drawings showing only two faces of the following solids: a square prism; a 2”x2”
cylinder; a cone and a square base pyramid. The research question for the visuall-
matching variable was as follows:
Research Question 2: Are there significant differences in a visualization score consisting
of visually matching four orthographic drawings among the four- cultural/language
groups?
The third dependent variable was defined as visualization/free-hand 3D drawing.
Free-hand naturalistic drawing was defined as the ability to transform three-dimensional
visual information into a graphic two-dimensional output. This variable had a combined
score of three points, taking into consideration the aspects of the drawing that were
supposed to be present on the rendering, such as vertical array, quantity of solids depicted
and canonical representation or recognizable image. The research question for the free
hand drawing variable was as follows:
consisting of the free-hand 3D drawing among the four-cultural/language groups?
The second component of the study dealt with representational strategies.
Representational strategies are ways in which children convey meaning in their drawings.
It involves developing internal representations of external representations (Pratt &
Garton, 1993). This construct was divided into two qualitative variables: drawing systems
and drawing devices found in the contour and free-hand 3D drawings.
65
Drawing systems are systems of representation or line projection categories in
which children’s drawings can be classified. The systems considered were as follows:
1) Drawing Systems in the tactile contour drawing of a cube:
a. schematic/orthographic - the solid is presented by a single face or by a
general outline of the figure
b. Projective properties - a single square and a side extending either
horizontally or vertically (Mitchelmore, 1987); the front the top are
combined (Willats, 1984, 1997); two views, the front and the side, are
put together (Willats, 1984, 1997)
c. Naive perspective - incipient attempt to use the lines with reference to
the spectator’s point of view giving the illusion of depth (Dubery &
Willats, 1972)
d. Isometric projection - the top, side and front views drawn at equal
angles to each other (Dubery & Willats, 1972)
e. Intellectual knowledge - child draws what is known to be there
(Derewogski, 1976)
2) Drawing systems in the tactile contour drawing of a cylinder:
a. Schematic/orthographic- the solid (cylinder) is presented by a single
face or by a general outline of the figure (Mitchelmore, 1978); drawing
shows only the front top or side faces of the cylinder (Willats, 1984,
1997)
b. Projective properties - when two views, the front and the side are put
together or when the top and the front are combined (Willats, 1984,
66
1997)
c. Naive perspective - a primitive illusion of depth in a two-
3. Drawing Systems Indicators in the free-hand 3D Drawing:
a. Scribble- a not recognizable drawing (Toomela, 1999)
b. orthographic projection or the use of parallel lines producing an
impression of flatness (Willats, 1984, 1997)
c. projective properties - when two views, the front and the side are put
together or when the top and the front are combined (Willats, 1984,
1997)
)
d. naive perspective - a primitive illusion of depth in a two-
e. Intellectual Realism - drawings have one-sided representation where
the characteristic and salient features are added (Phillips, Hobbs &
Pratt, 1978).
The research question about drawing systems was as follows:
Research Question 4: What drawing systems are present in the contour and free-hand
3D drawings of the four-cultural/language groups?
Drawing devices are natural and innate pictorial techniques used by children to
enhance their knowledge or perception of objects to be drawn, and often mistakenly
labeled as limited motor development. The devices considered for the contour and free
hand 3D drawing were as follows:
67
1) Drawing Devices in the tactile contour drawing of a cube:
a. fold-out - features of the cube are outlined and connected by lines that
stand for the edges.
b. frontal vertex with Y or T junction - drawing in which the front vertex of
the cube is represented by a Y and a base vertex by a T junction
2) Drawing devices in the tactile contour drawing of a cylinder:
a. fold out - features of the cylinder are outlined and connected by lines that
stand for the edges; slanted sides are attached to the rectangular area of the
cylinder creating an illusion of visual ‘explosion”
b. dissection - drawing of the cylinder containing divisions dividing the
object into three parallel sections
3) Drawing devices in the free-hand 3D drawing
a. segregation (moving objects in a picture relative to oneself),
b. hidden line elimination (HLE; partial occlusion or intersecting lines
not displayed on a drawing)
c. interposition or transparency (full representation of boundary lines
crossing one another)
Finally, the research question about drawing devices was:
Research question 5: What drawing devices are present in the contour and free-hand
drawings of the four-cultural language groups?
This concludes the presentation of the methods and procedures followed in this
study. Next chapter will present the results obtained in both, the quantitative and
qualitative parts of the study.
68
CHAPTER III
Results
Introduction
This chapter presents quantitative and qualitative analyses results. The first three
dependent variables of the study: Tactile Perception, Visual Matching, and Free-hand 3D
drawing were quantitatively analyzed in research questions one through three. These first
three analyses compared the performance of the four-cultural/language groups on the
specified dependent variables. The results of the analyses are reported separately for each
dependent variable following the order of its research question.
The second section concerning research questions 4 through 5, is a descriptive
analysis of the qualitative part of the study. The analysis is presented in tables of
frequencies as an examination of the Representational Strategies used by the groups,
including their subcategories: Drawing Systems and Drawing Devices. Drawings that
contained a combination of representational strategies were classified as “other”.
Analyses for Research Questions 1-3
consisting of description and tactile contour drawing of solids hidden from sight among
the four-cultural/language groups? A One-Way Factor Analysis of Variance was
conducted in order to examine the tactile perception performance of the four
cultural/language groups of the study: Anglo/European English Monolinguals,
African/American English Monolinguals, Hispanic/English Monolinguals and Hispanic-
Spanish Dominant. An alpha level or .05 was selected for all statistical analyses. The
69
mean scores of the groups are reported in table 10 below. The result of the analyses of
tactile perception during a spatial sense task is reported on table 11 below.
Table 10
Mean scores of Tactile Perception by group (Research Question 1)
Cultural/language groups
AEEM AAEM HEM HSD
Means 6.4 5.0 5.5 5.1
Table 11
One-Way ANOVA for Tactile Perception (Research Question 1)
Source SS df MS F (3 ,3 6 )
Between 12.2 3 4.06 3.86
Within 3M 36. 1.105
Total 52 39
F ’crit = 2.839 (3,36 ) *
The results presented in Table 11 show a significant F” (3,36) = 3.86, p < .05.
Subsequent Scheffe Post Hoc analyses revealed only one significant differences within
the means of the four cultural/language groups, F ’ <, p alpha =.05. The difference
between AEEM and AAEM was significant as Table 12, next page displays the Scheffe
Post Hoc analyses for Research Question 1. The effect size (Cohen, 1969) for research
question one for all six possible contrasts of the means averaged to f=.85. The power
value of the test was .99 (a=.05, u=3, f=.85, n=40).
70
Table 12
Scheffe Post Hoc comparisons for Tactile Perception (Res Ques 1)
Hypotheses F F ’crit Results, p a =.05
AEEM f AAEM 8.90 8.517 Significant
AAEM = HEM 3.68 8.517 Non-significant
AEEM ± HSD 8.047 8.517 Non-significant
AAEM ^ HEM 1.136 8.517 Non-significant
AAEM=£ HSD .0454 8.517 Non-significant
HSD f HEM .7272 8.517 Non-significant
consisting of visually matching four orthographic drawings among the four-
A One-Way Factor Analysis of Variance was conducted in order to examine the
visualization performance in visual matching of the four cultural/ language groups of the
study: Anglo/European English Monolinguals, African/American English Monolinguals,
Hispanic/English Dominant and Hispanic-Spanish Dominant. An alpha level of .05 was
used. The means scores for visual matching are displayed in table 13. The result of the
analyses of visual matching during a spatial sense task is reported in Table 14, p. 71.
Table 13 Mean scores of Visual Matching by group (Research Question 2)
AEEM AAEM HEM HSD
Means 3.3 3.3 3 3.10
71
Table 14
One-Way ANOVA for Visual Matching (Research Question 2)
Source SS df MS F(3,36)
Between .68 3 .226 .4770
Within 17.10 36 .475
Total 17.78 39
F ’crit = 2.839 (3,36)
The results presented in Table 14 show no significant differences within the four
cultural/language groups in visual matching, F ’ (3,36) = .4470. The computed effect size
for all six possible contrasts of the means from research question two averaged to .67.
The power value of the test was .99 (a=.05, u=3, f=.85, n=40)
Research Question 3: Are there significant differences in a visualization score in the
free-hand 3D drawing among the four-cultural/language groups?
A One-Way Factor Analysis of Variance was conducted in order to examine the
visualization performance in a free-hand 3D drawing among the four cultural/ language
groups of the study: Anglo/European English Monolinguals, African/American English
Monolinguals, Hispanic/English Dominant and Hispanic-Spanish Dominant. An alpha
level of .05 was used. Results of the mean scores are reported on table 15 below. The
result of the analyses of free-hand 3D drawing is reported in Table 16, next page.
Table 15 Mean scores of free-hand 3D drawing by group (Research Question 3)
AEEM AAEM HEM HSD
Means 2.9 3 2.8 2.9
72
Table 16
One-Way ANOVA for free-hand 3D drawing (Research Question 3)
Source SS df MS F ’(3,36)
Between .2 3 .066 .2854

Within 8.4 36_ .233
Total 8.6 39
F ’crit = 2.839
The results presented in Table 16, above, shows no significant differences in free-hand
3D drawing within the four cultural/language groups, F ’ (3,36) = .2854, p > .05. . The
computed effect size for all six possible contrasts of the means from research question
two averaged to .82. The power value of the test was .99 (a=.05, u=3, f=.85, n=40).
Further qualitative and descriptive analysis of the remainder research question follows.
Analyses of Research Questions 4-5
In this section frequency tables display percentages for drawing systems and
drawing devices as representational strategies. The drawings were classified according to
their representational characteristics, and a drawing could expose more than one pictorial
trait. The results are displayed in frequency tables, pages 73-79. Numbers in parentheses
denote the actual number of students’ drawings displaying the representational strategy.
This is the qualitative section of the study that consists on a descriptive analysis of the
drawings primarily addressing the remainder two research questions.
Research Question 4:
What drawing systems are present in the contour and free-hand 3D drawings of the four-
73
The representational systems in the tactile contour drawing of a cube were divided
into six sections: 1) schematic/orthographic, 2) projective projections, 3) naive
perspective, 4) isometric projection, and 5) intellectual realism. These strategies were
identified in the literature as common in young children’s drawing of a cube. Table 17,
presents the percentage of children producing drawing systems as representational
strategies in their tactile contour drawing of a cube. A large proportion of the drawings
displayed the schematic/orthographic projection in their renderings. The rest: oblique or
projective properties, naive perspective, isometric projection and intellectual realism as
representational strategies, obtained lower percentages, because a reduced number of
children elaborated their drawings beyond the schematic/orthographic projection system.
Table 17
Frequency of Drawing Systems Cube’s/Tactile contour drawings (Research Question 4)
Representational Strategies in Contour Frequencies Cultural/Language Groups Percentages
Drawing of a Cube - Drawing Systems Percentages AEEM AAEM HSD HEM
Indicators
Schematic orthographic projection - the solid (35) (8) (10) (10) (7)
(cube) is presented by a single face or by a 87.5% 80% 100% 100% 70%
general outline of the figure (Mitchelmore,
1978);drawing shows only the front, top or side
faces of an object (Willats 1984, 1997)
(2) Oblique or projective properties- a single (2) (1) (1)

square and a side extending either horizontally 5% 10% 10%
or vertically (Mitchelmore, 1987); the front and
the top are combined (Willats 1984,1997); or
two views, the front and the side, put together
(Willats 1984,1997)
(3) Naive perspective - incipient attempt to (2) (1) (1)

give the llusion of depth (Dubery & Willats, 5% 10% 10%
1972)
(4) Isometric projection - the top, side and (1) (1)

front views drawn at equal angles to each other 2.5% 10%
(Dubery & Willats, 1972)
(5) intellectual realism — draw ing has (1) (1)

one-sided representation w here the 2.5% 10%
characteristic and salient features are added
(Phillips, Hobbs & Pratt, 1978)
( ) = raw scores;
74
Table 18 below, displays the percentages of drawing systems found in the tactile
contour drawing of a cylinder. The analysis of the drawing systems was divided into four
sections: 1) schematic/orthographic, 2) oblique or projective properties and 3) naive
perspective and 4) intellectual realism, in accordance to the revised literature on drawing
this particular solid (Caron-Pargue,1992; Chen, 1985; Chen & Cook, 1984; Toomela,
1999).
Table 18
Frequency of Drawing Systems in Cylinder’s Tactile contour drawings (Research
Question 4)
Representational Strategies in the Contour Frequency Cultural/Language Groups
Drawing of a Cylinder - Drawing Systems Percentages AEEM AAEM HSD HEM
Indicators
(1) schematic/orthographic- the solid (19) (2) (3) (6) (8)
(cylinder) is presented by a single face or a 48% 20% 30% 60% 80%
general outline of the figure (Mitchelmore,
1978); drawing shows only the front, top or
side faces of the cylinder (Willats, 1984,
1997)
(2) oblique or projective properties - when (5) (2) (2) (1)

two 13% 20% 20% 10%
views, the front and the side are put together
or
when the top and the front are combined in
one
view (Willats, 1997)
(3) naive perspective - a primitive illusion of (3) (2) (1)

depth in a two dimensional plane (Willats, 8% 20% 10%
1997)
(17) (4) (3) (3) (4)

(4) intellectual realism - drawing has one 43% 40% 30% 30% 40%
sided representation where the characteristic
and salient features are added (Phillips, Hobbs
& Pratt, 1978)
( ) = raw scores
75
The schematic/orthographic projection obtained the largest percentage, a 48%.
Children produced drawings of a cylinder with projective properties and na'ive
perspective in smaller quantities, as displayed in the above table. The intellectual realism
system was close to the schematic/orthographic percentage with a 43%. The drawing
systems as representational strategies for the free-hand 3D drawing of solids were divided
using five indicators: ljScribblc, 2) schematic/ orthographic 3) projective properties 4)
naive perspective and 5) intellectual realism, as displayed in Table 19, below.
Table 19
Frequency of Drawing Systems in Free-hand 3D drawing (Research Question 5)
Representational Strategies in a Free-hand Frequency Cultural/Language Groups
drawing of Solids - Drawing Systems Indicators: Percentages AEEM AA HSD HEM
EM
(1) Scribble - a not recognizable drawing (2) (1) (1)
(Toomela, 1999) 5% 10% 10%
(2) schematic/orthographic- drawing shows (13) (5) (2) (2) (4)

only the front, top or side faces of the cylinder 33% 50% 20% 20% 40%
(Willats, 1984, 1997)
(3) projective properties - when two

views, the front and the side are put together (17) (5) (4) (4) (4)
or when the top and the front are combined 43% 50% 40% 40% 40%
(Willats, 1984, 1997)
(4) naive perspective - a primitive illusion of (4) (2) (1) (1)

depth in a two dimensional plane 10% 20% 10% 10%
(Willats, 1997)
(5) intellectual realism - drawing has one-sided (5) (1) (1) (1) (2)
representation where the characteristic and 13% 10% 10% 10% 20%
salient features are added (Phillips, Hobbs &
Pratt, 1978)
( ) = raw scores;
As displayed in the above table, 43% percent of the students used oblique or
projective properties to display their renderings of a three-dimensional object, followed
by the schematic/orthographic projection, which seems to be the most common strategy
76
used in contour and free-hand drawing as well. Ten percent of the students displayed
their drawings using a naive perspective and 13% of the drawings produced were
classified as having the intellectual realism properties, the least drawing system found
was the scribble that obtained only a 5%. The percentage proportion of children
displaying these drawing systems in their drawings was close for all the cultural and
linguistic groups.
Research Question 5 :
What drawing devices are present in the contour and free-hand 3D drawings of the four-
The drawing devices used by the children in the tactile contour drawing of the
cube, cylinder as representational strategies are displayed on tables 16 through 18 (pp 73-
74). Three possible drawing devices, that six to seven year old children could display in
their drawing of a cube, were selected for this study: 1) fold-out, 2) frontal vertex with Y
base or T-junction and 3) dissection, the basic fold-out feature and the dissection
appeared in low percentages. The fold-out feature recorded a 8%, while the frontal
vertex with or T-junction did not report any instance, and the dissection feature had one
instance, as displayed in Table 20, below.
Table 20 Frequency of Drawing Devices in Tactile Contour Drawings of a Cube (RQ 5)
Representational Strategies in the Frequency Cultural/Language Groups
tactile contour drawing of a cube - Percentages AEEM AEMM HSD HEM
Drawing Devices
(1) fold-out - features o f the solid (3) (1) (2)
(cube) are outlined and connected by 8% 10% 20%
lines that stand for edges o f the object
(Kennedy, 1984)
(3) frontal vertex w ith or T junction -
draw ing in w hich the front vertex o f the
cube is represented by a Y and a base
vertex by a T junction (N icholls &
K ennedy, 1992)
(4) D issection - draw ing o f a square (1) (1)
containing divisions inside the square 2% 10%
(N icholls & K ennedy, 1992)
( ) = raw scores;
77
Two drawing features were selected from the literature as possible drawing
devices in the tactile contour drawing of a cylinder: 1) fold-out and 2) dissection. A
reduced percentage of children used fold-out (2%) and dissection (5%) as their drawing
devices representing a cylinder hidden from sight; see Table 21, below.
Table 21
Frequency of Drawing Devices in Tactile Contour Drawings of a Cylinder (Research
Question 5)
Representational Strategies in the Frequency Cultural/Language Groups
Tactile contour drawing of a Percentages
AEEM AAEM HSS HEM
Cylinder - D raw ing Devices
(1) Fold-out - features of the (1) (1)

solid (cylinder) are outlined and 2% 10%
connected by lines that stand for
edges of the object (Kennedy,
1984); slanted sides are attached
to the visual rectangular area of
the cylinder creating an illusion
of visual “explosion” (Caron-
Pargue, 1985; Nicholls &
Kennedy, 1992)
(2) (1) (1)
(2) dissection - drawing of the 5% 10% 10%
cylinder contains line divisions,
dividing the object into three
parallel sections (Nicholls &
Kennedy, 1992)
( ) = raw scores;
The free-hand drawing’s devices indicators selected for the study were 1)
segregation, 2) hidden line elimination (HLE), and 3) interposition or transparency, see
results displayed in table 22, next page. A total of eighty five percent of the children used
drawing devices in their natural rendering of a 3D model. Segregation and HLE had
equal percentages, except at the cultural/language grouping, but the interposition or
78
transparency device frequency percentage (20%) was equally distributed among the
groups.
Table 22
Frequency of Drawing Devices in Free-hand 3D Drawings (Research
Question 5)
Representational Strategies Frequency Cultural/Language Groups
in Free-hand 3D drawings - Percentages AEEM AAEM HSD HEM
Drawing Devices Indicators:
(1) segregation or m oving (13) (3) (4) (4) (2)

objects in a picture relative to 33% 30% 40% 40% 20%
oneself (Freem an, 1980)
(13) (5) (4) (4)

(2) hidden line elim ination or 33% 50% 40% 40%
partial occlusion when
intersecting lines are not
displayed in the drawing
(Freem an, 1980)
(8) (2) (2) (2) (2)

(3) interposition or 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
transparency - the full
representation o f boundary
lines crossing one another
(Freem an, 1980)
( ) = raw scores
Other Results:
In the process of classifying children’s drawings, the judges found a wide variety
of drawings that could be classified by using a combination of systems and devices.
Some of those drawings displayed features not selected for the study but that are worthy
to mention as other results. Those drawings combining systems and devices, and with
79
“special” features were classified under the “other” category. The frequencies of these
other drawing features are reported in table 23 below.
Table 23
Frequency of Other Representational Strategies found in Subjects’ Drawings
Other Representational Strategies Frequency Cultural/Language Groups
Found Percentages A/S/M A/A/M H/S H/E
Contour Drawing of a Cube (9) (1) (3) (3) (2)
1. D isplay cube as a rhom bus like 23% 10% 30% 30% 20%
shapes
2.Com bine D raw ing System s (Drw

Sys) and D raw ing D evices (Drw dev):
(1) 3% (1) 10%
a) Display transparency (Drw dev) (1)3% (1) 10%
b) Y junction (drw dev) (1) 3% (1) 10%
c) naive perspective (Drw syst)
Tactile contour drawing of a
Cylinder
1. C om bine D raw ing System s and
D raw ing Devices: (5) 13% (1) 10% (1) 10% (1) 10% (2) 20%
(6) 15% (2) 20% (2) 20% (1) 10% (1) 10%
a) D isplay cylinder as a
(13) 33% (4) 40% (2) 20% (4) 40% (3) 30%
rhom bus
b) H LE (Drw dev)
c) Transparency (Drw dev)
Free-hand drawing of Solids (4) (1) (1) (2)
(1) D isplays prim itive geom etric 10% 10% 10% 20%
salient features
(2) Com bine D raw ing System s and (24) (6) (7) (7) (4)
D raw ing D evices’
60% 60% 70% 70% 40%
( ) = raw scores; A/S/M = Anglo Saxon Monolingual; A/A/M= African American Monolingual; H/S= Hispanic
Spanish; H/E Hispanic English
It was noted that 23% of the cube drawings and 15% of the cylinder’s drawings
were displayed as an elongated rhombus like shape. Some of those drawings were
previously classified under categories such as schematic/orthographic, oblique projective
properties or naive perspective, but the judges agreed that the drawings displayed features
that went beyond the threshold defined for each category. The HLE although not
considered for the cylinder as a device category, was found in 15% of the drawings. The
80
children eliminated one of the elliptical lines of the cylinder, showing only one
rectangular and one elliptical side. The transparency device was not initially considered
as a category for either of the two solids in the tactile-perception task, because the
literature on transparency, points to this feature when combinations of objects are to be
drawn. However, one child drew the cube using the Necker technique that could be
considered transparency and 33% of the children drew the cylinder showing all its
distinctive features as if the cylinder was made out of crystal instead of wood. All the
children’s drawings are included as Appendixes L-M (pp. 161-162), and selected samples
of these drawings are presented for further discussion in Chapter IV.
81
Chapter IV
Discussion of the Results
Introduction
This section discusses the findings of the study. The research questions served as
guides to organize the discussion of the results for the two major constructs of the study:
Spatial Sense and Representational Strategies. The performance oral interview was the
assessment instrument that allowed the researcher to gather data on spatial sense and
representational strategies used by young children. Spatial sense was examined through
tasks of 1) tactile perception (the sensory perception of objects or shapes), and 2)
visualization (the ability to manipulate representations of visual objects); representational
strategies were examined through the tactile contour drawings of geometric solids and the
free-hand 3D drawing in relation to drawing systems and drawing devices. Limitations of
the study and the implications for future research are discussed.
Discussion o f findings: One-Way Analyses o f Variances
To explore the possibility of possible differences between the four-cultural/
language groups on the spatial sense tasks, research questions one through three were
analyzed using the analysis of variance and their results are discussed in this section.
Research Question 1 asked if there were significant differences between the four-
cultural/language in a measure of spatial sense on tactile-perception, consisting of a
description or naming, labeling, identifying and quantifying solids, and, on the tactile
contour drawing of those two solids, a cylinder and a cube, hidden from sight. The initial
analysis pointed to a possible statistical difference as stated in Table 10, page 69. In the
raw score analysis, the Anglo-European group attained the highest score in tactile-
perception followed by the Hispanic-English speaking group, then by the Hispanic-
Spanish speaking and last by the African-American. The Anglo-European children were
more articulated in their responses to the describing section of the tactile-perception task
than the rest of the children. However, in the contour rendering of the solids all the
groups performed equally, that is, they drew objects resembling the solids hidden from
sight. In a subsequent Scheffe post hoc analysis of the independent groups, table 12, page
70, these scores, revealed only one significant difference among the AEEM and the
AAEM. The AEEM group was more articulated in their responses to the tactile
perception questions of the protocol interview. This could be explained in terms of a
difference of schooling, because at least, 75% of these students were drawn from a public
charter school where they received three-dimensional geometry in kindergarten. The rest
of the non-significant results could indicate that in societies where writing and drawing
are necessary tools of graphic representation, children in the early years and regardless of
their ethnic origin tend to explore, verbalize and use drawing as major tool for expression
(Trawick-Smith, 1997).
Research Question 2 inquired if there were significant differences between the four-
cultural/language in a measure of spatial sense on visualization, consisting of visually
matching four orthographic drawings: square prism, 2”x2” cylinder, cone and square base
pyramid. The results of this question do not support the notion of differences between the
groups, because in their final scores the children were equivalent by performing low on
the tasks. It could be that this task was not developmentally appropriate for the groups.
Research Question 3 posed if there were significant differences between the four-
cultural/language groups in a measure of spatial sense on visualization, consisting of the
free-hand 3D drawing of model: Model B-4. The analysis revealed no significant
differences between the groups in the free-hand drawings. The children drew the model
or attempted to represent a three-dimensional model in a two dimensional plane. They all
reproduced three objects; drew them in a vertical array and used cultural/pictorial
symbols that resembled the solids they were drawing, and these were the criteria for
scoring this section. This could suggest that children who have attended pre-school have
additional tools for representation for their advantage. The next r.esearch questions looked
into the qualitative aspects of the tactile-contour and free-hand 3D drawings the children
produced during the spatial sense tasks.
Research Question 4 inquired what drawing systems were present in the tactile-contour
and free-hand 3D drawings of the four-culture/language groups, noting that drawing
systems included but were not limited to: scribble, schematic/orthographic, projective
properties, naive perspective, isometric projection, and intellectual realism. The
frequencies that these systems appeared in the children’s drawings are recorded in tables
18 through 20, pp. 74-76. For the purpose of this study, the drawing systems were
visually explained by having actual samples of the drawings, of the tactile-perception
tactile contour drawing task and the free-hand 3D drawing. Only samples of the recorded
behaviors are displayed.
The drawing task of the cube and the cylinder used in this study was a tactile-
contour spatial task. The children used their sense of touch to produce a representation of
the solids inside the can. The percentage of children using one-square for the cube, and
one single unit for the cylinder was high. The question to ask is if this tendency of
drawing one single square is an evidence of a stage of development or a conceptual
84
representational system. According to Toomela (1999) this tendency to draw a “single
unit” is typical for 4 to 7 year-old children. Nichols and Kennedy (1992) also stated that
drawing a square for a cube is an early stage, peaking around 5 years of age. However, it
was Freeman (1980) who argued that when drawing a cube by using the
orthographic/schematic projection, the child is assessing the solid as a whole, or in the
other hand, the square represents the true shape of just the front face of the cube. Figure
8, on the next page, displays visual samples of the schematic/orthographic mode found, in
a large percentage,-in children’s tactile contour drawings of a cube and a cylinder hidden
from sight.
Figure 8. Samples of Schematic/orthographic Drawings of a Cube and a Cylinder
85
In the free-hand 3D drawing of Model B-4, the drawings systems used by the
children varied in that an almost equal percentage of children used projective properties
as well as the schematic/orthographic projections. This tendency could be the result of
dealing with a three-dimensional object that they were able to see. Interestingly, children
who drew the cube in the orthographic mode, used oblique projections for their cylinder
and 3D representations. This could pose a dichotomy in the notion that children draw
what they know rather than what they see (Piaget & Inhelder, 1967). Figure 9, below,
displays some samples of this pictorial behavior.
Figure 9. Samples of Orthographic and Oblique Projections produced by the same
children
86
The rest of the drawing systems dealt with naive perspective and intellectual
realism in both, the contour and free-hand 3D drawings. In the naive perspective system
the child gave a primitive illusion of depth in a two dimensional plane. If one is to accept
the idea of a defined developmental pattern in drawing (Toomela, 1999), this drawing
system appeared in a low percentage across all four-groups, suggesting that some
children were already evolving from the orthographic mode to a more sophisticated
drawing system.
Half of the children involved in this study used the intellectual realism system in
their drawings of the solids (see samples on Figure 10, page 87). This distinctive feature
was further displayed in the tactile contour drawing of the cylinder and in the 3D free
hand- drawing that had two cylinders and a hemisphere as solids to be drawn. The
children displayed the characteristics and salient features of the cylindrical objects, not
like in the cube, where the one sided projection obtained the highest percentage. Again,
the intellectual realism axiom, that the child draws what he knows rather than what he
sees, repeats it in these results. Freeman (1980) presents three possibilities to explain this
phenomenon:
“The first is that the child has a special m echanism o f some sort w hich lead him to give
the accessing o f conceptual know ledge priority over all other abilities, so that a draw ing
gives a print-out o f his conceptual sto re .. .The second possibility is that the child’s
draw ing is know ledge-dom inated only because he lacks other specialized know ledge
w hich w ould prevent that dom ination. In particular he m ay lack specialized skills in
m atching shapes to form: know ing w hat som ething is does not guarantee that one know s
how it goes. . .The third possibility is that the child can draw far m ore sensitively to visual
m odels than appears, because he extracts the ‘structural core’ o f the m odel, w hat is
often called its canonical form” (p. 28).
Figure 10. Samples of Intellectual Realism
88
Research Question 5 asked what drawing devices indicators were present in the tactile-
contour and free-hand 3D drawings of the four-cultural/language groups, observing that
drawing devices included but were not limited to: fold-out, frontal vertex with T and Y
junction and dissection for the cube; fold-out and dissection for the cylinder; and
segregation, hidden line elimination (HLE) and transparency for Model B4.
Drawing devices are natural drawing techniques used by children to enhance their
knowledge and perception of objects (Freeman, 1980). Although there are many drawing
devices identified by researchers, the above mentioned devices were the ones selected for
this study. Starting with the cube, only a small percentage of the children drew the cube
using the fold-out device. This drawing device is called by Willats (1997) as
“anomalous”, because it does not provide possible views and departs from the distinction
between production and perception and he expands of what that term really means:
“It is im portant to distinguish betw een the m ental processes underlying picture
production and those underlying picture perception. The hum an visual system is designed
to take in visual inform ation in the form s o f view s, and draw ings that do not provide
possible view s do not look ‘right’, at least to W estern, adult eyes.” (pag, 316).
Willats compared this type of “anomalous drawing” with the blueprints used by engineers
that contain plan, front and side elevations with all the faces joined together and further
goes on to admit that children might prefer this type of drawing because it provides
information that the child regards as important.
The frontal vertex with T and Y junction dissection devices were not present in
the children pictorial responses, maybe because these devices are commonly seen in
children ten years and eight month-old (Nicholls and Kennedy, 1992). For this study,
only the fold-out and dissection devices were considered for the cylinder. To the
89
judgment of the raters of this study, these devices were used by a very low number of
subjects. Samples of drawing devices found in the tactile-tactile contour drawing of a
cube and a cylinder are below.
a T tssfct i 6r»
-fcransp a r le y
Figure 11. Samples of Drawing Devices in Tactile contour drawings
90
The drawing devices considered for the free-hand drawing of a three-dimensional
model were: segregation, hidden line elimination (HLE) and transparency. The
segregation device, where the objects seemed to be floating on the picture was recurrent
for all linguistic and cultural groups. This device is found in young children depictions
and it was not surprising to have 33% percent of the children of this study displaying this
device (see Figure 12, below for segregation).
Figure 12. Segregation or Moving Objects
91
Thirty three percent of the children used the HLE device (when intersecting lines
are not displayed in the drawing). This drawing device tends to occur in children seven
years-old and up, and children who use HLE in drawing have a better understanding of
pictorial relations (Freeman, 1980). Samples of HLE are displayed below.
Figure 13. Samples of HLE
The interposition or transparency device is a drawing where the boundary lines
cross one another (Freeman, 1980). In this study 20% of the children displayed this
device in their drawings, perhaps these were the ones that who could not reached the
HLE threshold but were not either in the segregation “stage”. Few children used the
eraser as the correcting tool to enhance their drawings. A large majority of the drawings
where produced as free-hand sketch and children did not bother to correct the lines that
were interposing other objects. Samples of transparency are below.
Figure 14. Transparency or Interposition in Free-hand 3D drawings
93
Other drawing categories
Finally, there were drawings that seemed to combine drawing systems and
drawing devices and drawings that could not be classified in the initial classification
system. For example 23% of the cube’s drawings and 13% of the cylinder’s drawings
were displayed in a shape similar to a rhombus. The judges classified those drawings in
categories such as schematic/orthographic, oblique projective properties and naive
perspective because the drawings display features described for those categories.
According to an expert in the field of Architecture, when anyone draws a geometric solid
using the tactile-perception, a task that is widely used in art-classes, one tends to
foreshorten the side close to the palm of the hand, and this could be misinterpreted as an
attempt to give an illusion of projection (Miguel Chacon, personal communication, Mar
23, 2003). This could explain why some children drew the cube and the cylinders with
one size foreshorten; see below samples.
Cylinder
Figure 15. Samples of Cube and Cylinder Drawn with One Side Foreshorten
Although the HLE was not considered for the cylinder as a device category, it
was found in 15% of the drawings. The children eliminated one of the elliptical lines of
the cylinder, showing only one rectangular and one elliptical side. The transparency
device was not considered for the cube and the cylinder, because the literature on
transparency points to this feature when combinations of adjacent objects are to be
drawn, therefore it was used as a guide for the free-hand drawing of a 3D model. The
HLE and transparency were considered by Caron-Pargue (1992) when she stated that “the
correct drawing of a cylinder requires (1) taking into account the round shape of the
object, and (2) eliminating a part of this round shape, which cannot be seen because the
cylinder is opaque” (p. 54). The drawing of the cylinder showing its distinctive sides was
labeled “triple figures” and the representation of the cylinder with a HLE feature is called
“double figures”. Caron-Pargue argued that these pictorial responses are decomposition
and re-composition. The child focuses either on the rectangular or circular part of the
cylinder and decomposes the other form or side, leading eventually to perspective, where
the HLE occurs. W hat seemed a combination of drawing devices and systems is
categorized by Caron-Pargue as decomposition process, mainly defined as a
decomposition device.
According to Caron-Pargue, (1992) the decomposition device is dependent of the
task given to the child. In her study children who drew the cylinder with a rectangular
base, and with either sides in a circular and or an elliptical manner, were the ones
assigned to the condition where the cylinder was either on its side or standing up and they
were not allowed to touch it. And the children who drew the cylinder showing its two
sides as either circular or elliptical were the ones who were allowed to touch it. The
95
results of this study revealed that children use either systems independently of the task,
because all the children were allowed to manipulate the two solids but not allow to see
them, and they produced drawings similar to the ones produced by Caron-Pargue’s
subjects.
Another example of a drawing classified as “other” and featuring at least a
combination of two drawing systems (transparency and naive perspective) and a drawing
device (Y junction) is the one drawn by a child using the Necker cube technique
(Freeman, 1986) as seen below. The Necker cube is a drawing where two faces of it are
displayed orthogonal (flat) and two faces are displayed using the oblique projection,
some sort of hybrid projection system invented by adults, and always labeled as the
“correct way” to draw a cube (Freeman, 1986). In this child’s attempt to reproduce an
adult drawing formula, one can see the same problem that anyone encounters while doing
this task, “none of the faces appears as a square and the depth lines are not parallel” (Cox,
1986, p.342). So the child’s attempts were more correct than the stereotyped cube on the
left side because it depicts an incipient rotation.
Figure 16. Necker Cube and child’s drawing
96
Implications
Although one result of the discussed in the preceding quantitative section was
statistically significant, those that were non-significant could be interpreted as if first
grade students, male and female, and from diverse cultural and linguistic-background
seem not to have differences in spatial sense, when they are at a young age (6-7 years
old). All children who participated in the study had preschool background. This fact may
suggest an equalizing factor for the apparent similarities in the other spatial tasks’
performance, because children were introduced to certain solid blocks as a play objects in
kindergarten. The fact that the children from the public charter school were the ones who
brought up the means of the tactile perception task is a refreshing thought for those
parents and educators who strive to give alternative ways of schooling to their children.
The qualitative assessment provides background for several pedagogical considerations.
First, children’s drawings seem to be pictorial approaches to perception and problem
solving. Teachers should consider the use of drawing as an assessment tool in their
classroom, to allow alternate ways of evaluation that could tell more than memory tests
(Aguirre, 1998). This is especially critical when the educational budget for art classes is
been restricted in most of the school districts. Alternate curricular activities as the ones
designed for this study could enrich the elementary mathematic curriculum enhancing
young children’s construction of knowledge.
Second, the children demonstrated varying problem solving strategies. They
responded accordingly depending on the specification and requirement of the tasks. Their
unique pictorial approaches to contour and free-hand 3D drawing suggest cognitive
flexibility enabling them to jum p out the rigidity of the developmental ladder or stages.
97
As Freeman (1980) stated:
“When the drawing of young children is watched, it often becomes apparent that
the uninformative or an erroneously rotated end product results from a strategy
which is clearly affected by the spatial characteristics of the scene. There is a
great deal going on under the surface which has often been totally overlooked by
those intent on scoring the finished product as right or wrong” (Freeman, 1980,
p.231).
The fact that 5% of the children used scribble to display their renderings of three-
dimensional objects suggest that a real life model will elicit better pictorial responses
than a two dimensional one. Three-dimensional models should enrich the elementary
years for student to have a better understanding of spatial sense or relationships.
Limitations o f the study
During the data analysis the researcher found that dealing with transcripts lacking
of audio-visual input was a major limitation. Along with written field notes and
transcripts of recorded interviews, videotapes would have been an excellent source of
information, especially when the child was engaged in the non-verbal aspects of the
spatial sense tasks.
The sample number was another limitation in this study. Dealing with samples
less of than 100 subjects could render to not so powerful analyses. The assumption of
random selection was not met in this study, and tests run with this limitation will not give
any meaningful results (Wilcox in Harris, 1995). It was extremely difficult for the
researcher to have a random sample, because not so many parents were interested in
having their children to participate in the study.
98
Suggestions fo r further research
The following are suggestions for further research in this topic. It is unknown if
the tactile-perception contour drawing task will be similar to a blind child, or to children
that have never participated in any preschool program. The tactile perception task can be
evaluated using an unique object made out of a combination of common solids glued
together, and letting the child describe, select and draw the object without seeing it. This
may enable the researcher to view how the child will respond to a compound solid with
familiar features in a hidden from sight-spatial sense task. Then a 3D replica of the object
could be presented to the child to perform a free-hand 3D drawing, and both drawings
could be compared and analyzed. The population should include a representation of all
ages from 4 and above. Perhaps these combined visual-spatial sense tasks could provide
more visual and theoretical input to the never ending dilemma of children drawing what
they know rather than what they see.
99
R EFER EN C ES
Aguirre-Ortiz, M. (1998). Open-ended questions: An alternative mode to assess the
students’ performance in concept development and use of scientific vocabulary.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. State University of New York at Buffalo.
Alyman, C. & Peters, M. (1993). Performance of male and female, adolescents and adults
on spatial tasks that involve everyday objects and settings. Canadian Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 47,(4), 730-748.
Arheim, R. (1954). Art and visual perception. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Battista, M. T. & Clements, D. H. (1996). Students’ understanding of three-dimensional
rectangular array of cubes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(3),
258-292.
Ben-haim, D., Lappan, G. & Houang, R.T. (1985). Visualizing rectangular solids of small
cubes; analyzing and effecting students’ performance. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 16, (389-409)
Bishop, A.J. (1979). Visualising and mathematics in a pre-technological culture.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 10, 135-146.
Bruni, J. & Seidstein, R. (1990). Geometric concepts and spatial sense. In J.N. Payne
(Ed.) Mathematics for the young child. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics.
Campos, A., Lopez, A. & Perez, M.J. (1998). Vividness of visual and tactile imagery of
movement. Perceptual M otor Skills, 87, 271-274.
Caron-Pargue, J. (1992). A functional analysis of decomposition and integration in
children’s cylinder drawing. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10,
I
100
51-69.
Carroll, J.B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, M. J. (1985). Young children's representational drawings of solid objects: a
comparison of drawing and copying. In N.H. Freeman & M.V. Cox, (Eds.).
Visual order: the nature and development of pictorial representation (pp. 157-
175). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, M. J. & Cook, M. (1984). Representational drawings of solid objects by young
children. Perception, 13, 377-385.
Clements, D. H. & Battista, M.T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. In D. A.
Grouws (Ed.). Handbook of research in mathematics, teaching and learning, (pp.
420-464). New York: MacMillan.
Cox, M.V. (1986) Cubes are difficult things to draw. British Journal of developmental
Psychology, 4 (341-345).
Cox, M. V & Lambon, M. R. (1996). Young children's ability to adapt their drawing of
the human figure. Educational Psychology, 16(3), 132-157.
Davis, A. (1985). The canonical bias: Young children's drawings of familiar objects. In
N.H. Freeman & M.V. Cox, (Eds.) Visual order: The nature and development of
pictorial representation, (191-206). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Davis, J. & Gardner, H. (1993). The arts and early childhood education: A cognitive
developmental portrait of the young child as artist. In B. Spodek (Ed.) Handbook
of research on the education of young children, (pp. 1919-206). New York:
Macmillan.
Del Grande, J. (1990). Spatial Sense. Arithmetic Teacher. 37(6), 14-20.
Deregwoski, J.B, (1976). Coding and drawing of simple geometric stimuli by bukusu
schoolchildren in Kenya. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 7(2), 195-208
Deregwoski, J.B. & Dziurawieck, S. (1994). Perceptual impulsions and unfamiliar solids
evidence from a drawing task. British Journal of Psychology, 85 (1), 1-15.
Deregowski, J. B. & Strang, P. (1986). On the drawing of a cube and its derivatives.
British Journal of Psychology, 4 (4) 323-330.
Dubery, F. & Willats, J. (1972). Drawing systems. London: Studio Vista.
Dziurawiec, S. & Deregowski, J.B. (1992). ‘Twisted perspective’ In young children’s
drawings. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 35-49.
Doran, R., Chan, F. & Tamir, P. (1998). Science educator’s guide to assessment. VA:
National Science Teachers Association.
Edwards, B. (1989). Drawing with the right side of your brain. New York: Putnam
Books.
Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in variability in intellectual abilities: a cross-
cultural perspective. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 30(1-2), 8-20.
Freeman, N.H. (1977). How young children try too plan drawings. In G. Butterworth
(Ed.), The childs’ representation of the world, (pp. 113-132). New York: Plenum
Press.
Freeman, N.H. (1980). Strategies of representation in young children: Analysis of spatial
skills and drawing processes. New York/London: Academic Press.
Freeman, N.H. (1986). How should a cube be drawn? British Journal of Developmental
Psychology. 4 , 317-322.
102
Freeman, N.H. (1987). Current problems in the development of representational picture-
production. Archives de Psychologie, 55, 127-152.
Freeman, N.H. (1993). Drawing: Public instruments of representation. In C. Pratt and A.
Garton, A. (Eds.). Systems of representation in children: Development and use.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Freeman, N.H. & Cox, M.V. (1985, Eds.). Visual order: The nature and development of
pictorial representation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Frydman, M. & Lynn, R. (1992). The general intelligence and spatial abilities of gifted
young Belgian chess players. British Journal of Psychology, 83(2), 233-235.
Gardner, H. (1980). Artful scribbles: The significance of children's drawings. New York:
Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1982). Art. mind and brain. New York: Basic Books.
Giachino, J.W. & Beukema, H.J. (1961). Engineering-technical drafting and graphics.
Chicago: American Technical Society.
Golom, C. (2000). Drawing as representation: The child’s acquisition of meaningful
graphic language. Visual Arts Research. (Issue 40) 26. (2), 14-27.
Gonzalez, N. (1995). Processual approaches to multicultural education. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 31(2). 234-244.
Guthrie, P. J. (1994). The effects of development, manipulation of objects, and verbal
cues on the spatial representation in young children's drawings. Visual Arts
Research.20 (1) 50-61.
Haanstra, F. (1996). Effects of art education on visual-spatial ability and aesthetic
103
perception: A quantitative review. STUDIES in Art Education. A Journal of
Issues and Research, 37(4), 197-209.
Hagen, M. A. (1985). There is no development in art. In N.H. Freeman & M.V. Cox,
(Eds.). Visual order: The nature and development of pictorial representation.
(pp. 59-77). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Harris, M.B. (1995). Basic statistics for behavioral science research. Massachusetts:
Simon & Schuster Company.
Hernandez, N.G. (1999). Understanding the needs of Latino students in reform-oriented
mathematics classroom. In W.G. Secada (Ed.) Changing the faces of
mathematics: Perspectives on Latinos. NCTM: Virginia.
Hobbs, S.B. & Pratt, F.R. (1978). Intellectual realism in children’s drawings of cubes.
Cognition, 6, 15-33.
Holmes, E., Hughes, B. & Gunnar, J. (1998). Tactile perception of texture gradients.
Perception, 27, 993-1008.
Izard, J. (1990) Spatial Sense; Developing spatial skills with 3-D puzzles. Arithmetic
Teacher 37(61. 44-47.
Johnson, M. L. (1989). Minority differences in mathematics. In M.M. Lindquist (Ed.),
Results from the fourth mathematics assessment of the national assessment of
education progress (pp. 135-148). Reston VA: NCTM.
Kennedy, J.M. (1984). Drawings by the blind: sighted children and adults judge their
sequence development. Visual Arts Research, 10, (1-6).
Klaue, K. (1992). The development of depth representation in children’s drawings:
effects of graphic surface and visibility of the model. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 10, 71-83.
Lewis, H.P. & Livson, N. (1967). Correlates of developmental level of spatial
representation in children’s drawings. Studies in Art Education, 8, (2), 46-55.
Livesey, D. J. & Intili, D. (1996). A gender difference in visual-spatial ability in 4-year-
old children: Effects of performance of a kinesthetic acuity tasks. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 63(2) 436-447.
Lowenfeld, V. (1957). Creative and mental growth (3d ed.). New York: Macmillan.
MacArthur, J.M. & Wellner, K.L. (1996). Reexamining spatial ability within a Piagetian
framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1056-1082.
MacFee, J.K. (1967). Preparation for art. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company,
Inc.
Malave, L. M. (1997). Parent characteristics: Influence in the development of biligualism
in young children. NYSABE Journal, 12(Fall), 15-42.
Mitchelmore, M.C. (1978). Developmental stages in children's representation of regular
solid figures. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 133, 229-239.
Mitchelmore, M.C. (1980). Prediction of developmental stages in the representation of
regular solid figures. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 11, 205-
216.
Mitchelmore, M .C.(1985) Geometrical foundations of children’s drawing. In N.H
Freeman and M.V. Cox (Eds.), Visual Order: The nature and development of
pictorial representation (pp. 289-309). Cambridge: The University Press.
Mitchelmore, M .C.(1987) Why do children not use parallels in their drawings of cubes?
Archives de Psychologie, 55, 179-184.
105
Molina-Serrano, Y. (2000). Spatial sense and young children of diverse background
characteristics. Unpublished manuscript. State University of New York at
Buffalo.
Moody, L. (1991). Copying, naturalisitic drawing and spatial aptitude. Visual Arts
Research. (Issue 34) 17(2), Fall, 1991, 33-42.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation
standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. Reston: VA
Nicholls, A. (1995). Influence of visual projection on young children's depictions of
object proportions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 304-326.
Nicholls, A. & Kennedy, J.M. (1992). Drawing development: from similarity of
features to direction. Child Development, 63( 1), 227-241.
Orde, B. J. (1997). Drawing as visual perceptual ability training. Proceedings of Selected
Research and Development Presentations at the 1997 National Convention of the
Association for Educational Communications and Technology (19th,
ALburqueque, NM, February 14-18. ERIC # IR 018421
Palmer, S. Rosch, E., Chase, P. (1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of
objects. In J. Long and A. Baddley (Eds.) Attention and performance IX.
(pp. 135-151). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Park, E. & I, B. (1995). Children's representation systems in drawing three-dimensional
objects: A review of empirical studies. Visual Arts Research, 21,(2), 42-56.
Pauli, L. & Nathan, H. & Droz, R. & Grize, J.B., (1977). Piagetian Inventories: The
106
experiments of Jean Piaget. France: OECD.
Phillips, W.A. Hobbs, S. B. & Pratt, F.R. (1978). Intellectual realism in children’s
drawings of cubes. Cognition 6, 15-33.
Pratt, C . , Garton, A.F. (1993). Systems of representation in children: development and
Use. In C. Pratt and A.F. Garton, (Eds.) (pp. 1-9) New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1967). The child's conception of space. New York: W.W.
Norton & Co.
Robinson, N.M. & Abbot, R. D. & Beminger, V.W. & Busse, J. (1996). The structure of
abilities in math-precocious young children: Gender similarities and differences.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 341-353.
Rodriguez, S.E. (1998). The English language proficiency of culturally and linguistically
diverse exceptional adolescent. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
the State of New York, Buffalo.
Secada, W. G. (1992). Race, ethnicity, social class, language and achievement in
mathematics. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.) Handbook of research on mathematics
teaching and learning. New York: McMillan.
Selfe, L. (1985). Anomalous drawing development. In N.H. Freeman and M.V. Cox
(Eds.) Visual Order: The nature and development of pictorial representation. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Sheehan, S. (1997). Technical page; Outline vs. tactile contour drawings and mural
painting on brick. American Artist, 61(655), 10-13.
Sutton, P.J. & Rose, D. (1998). The role of strategic visual attention in children's drawing
development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 68, 87-107.
107
Tate, W.F. (1997). Race-ethnicity, SES, gender, and language proficiency trends in
mathematics achievement: An update. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 28(6),652-679.
Toomela, A. (1999). Drawing development: stages in the representation of a cube and a
cylinder. Child Development, 70(5), 1141-1150.
Trawick-Smith, J. (1997). Early childhood development: A multicultural perspective.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Venger, L.A. (1982). Studies on the development of abilities in children. In W. Hartep, I.
Ahammer, and H. Pic (Eds.). Review of child development research. Chicago:
Chicago Press, pp. 501-525
Voyer, D. (1996). The relation between mathematical achievement and gender
differences in spatial abilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88 (3), 563-
512.
Willats. J. (1977). How children learn to represent three-dimensional space in drawings.
In G. Butterworth (Ed.) The child’s representation of the world, (pp. 189-202)
New York: Plenum Press.
Willats. J. (1984). Getting the drawing to look right as well as to be right. In W.R.
Crozier & A. Chapman (Eds.) Cognitive processes in the perception of art.
(pp. 111-125) New York: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
Willats. J. (1985). Drawing systems revisited: The role of denotation systems in
children's figure drawings. In N.H. Freeman and M. V. Cox (Eds.) Visual Order:
The nature and development of pictorial representation, (pp. 78-100). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
108
Willats. J. (1992). The representation of extendedness in children’s drawings of sticks and
discs. Child Development. 63. 692-710.
Willats. J. (1997). Art and representation: New principles in the analysis of pictures.
New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Wilson. D.C. (2002). Young children’s composition of geometric figures: a learning
trajectory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation of the State University of New York
at Buffalo.
Yackel, E. & Wheatley, G. (1990) Spatial Sense: Promoting visual imagery in young
pupils. Arithmetic Teacher, 37(6), 52-58
109
Appendix A
110
MEMORANDUM
To: Lilliam M. Malave, PhD
CC: Rodney Doran, PhD
From: Yolanda Molina-Serrano
Date: 12/07/1999
Re: Meeting with Dr.Doran, regarding the Protocol Interview and the Scoring
Rubric for my Research Component
On Dec 7, 1999, from 1:00 p.m to 1:45 p.m., I met with Dr. Doran to discuss his
feedback on the Protocol Interview and the Scoring Rubric. Dr. Doran made the
following suggestions and comments:
I. Protocol Interview
Tactile Perception
Task item #5: "5. What do you think that/those is/are made of?"
Comment: He asked if pursuing this question was useful. I told him that
I wanted to enrich the study with qualitative data on what was on the children's mind
during the tactile perception task. The purpose of this question is to have the
children infer visual information from cutaneous stimuli.
Task item #9: "9. What do you think these things are made for?"
Comment: Again he questioned the usefulness of this inquiry that looks like the one
in item #5. He also asked if this question was kind of a "Break Ice” question,
because it seemed not to be related to spatial sense. I must admit that his point is a
valid one, and I have no hesitation to remove it from the protocol interview.
Visualization
Orthographic-view Visual Matching
First paragraph:..."This drawing has no shading, perspective or three dimensional
illusion. They are line drawings on white paper"
Comment: He suggested to include that the drawings have 2-dimension and 2

views (top and bottom).
Item #12: "12. Presents th e to the child..."
Suggestion: To write first drawing, second drawing, third drawing and so on"
I did not write these because I assumed it would have been repetitious.
"12.. .Remember that only one matches the picture"
Comment: To rephrase: Remember that only one matches the picture with its
front, top or bottom.
Constructing a three-dimensional structure
Ill
Item #14:"14...W hat does this structure look like to you?"

Comment: He was concerned if this item was going to be scored.
I told him that I only needed that information for the qualitative part of the
study, when the children compare the solids with real or imaginary objects they have
seen.
Pictorial Rendering
First paragraph: "The researcher will ask the child if she/he can draw the last
structure built"
Suggestion and comments:
1. He suggested to add "Model B-3" to the end of that sentence.
2. He was concerned if the children would ask what kind of drawing.
I assured him that any type of drawing related to the model would have been
acceptable, since this study explores how young children perceive three-dimensional
space onto a two dimensional plane.
Illustrations of the solids to be used in the study

Suggestions and comments:
1. He suggested including the terms: top view and front view in all.
I would consider that possibility since it is clarifying the process for the children.
2. He asked if only one block could match the orthographic view of the cone.
I assured him that that was the fact.
3. He suggested then to include drawings of other solids like the plane cut parabole
that has a "chunk" cut to see if they could visually match it.
Indeed it is a good possibility for further research.
II. Scoring Rubric

Tactile Perception
Item 1) Recognize solids and Criterion
Suggestions:
1. To include, identify with appropriate or acceptable label/name next to recognize

solids.
Criterion:
112
2. To change the word observation for answer.
3. To list as many examples of possible words or labels such as: dice, roller, etc.
Item 2) Description of solids and Criterion
"...gives more than one description"

Comment: He was concerned if the child gives more than one description to the
solid if that would affect the score. If, for example, the child gives two descriptions
for the cylinder but one for the cube or if I was referring to the first two descriptions
the child was giving, regardless the solid he/she was referring to.
I was referring to the first two descriptions within the solids properties that is
one description for each solid. There is only one correct description for the cylinder
and another correct one for the cube.
Suggestion: To allow more acceptable words and word with phrases such as edge,
will roll, round, etc.
Item 3) Quantification of solids and criterion
"allow 1 point if the child counts the solids as two or if the child counts the total 9
faces of the objects"
Comment: There are two solids in the can and two should be counted.
I explained to him that several children were counting the sides of the objects
while I was conducting the task and I tried to benefit them by giving a score of 1
point to their efforts. Nonetheless, no case of correct solid's faces/facets counting
appeared in the data. He seemed satisfied with my effort.
Item 4) Copying a 3-D Model

"d) Could you draw me a picture of what you are touching without looking at it?"
Suggestion: To include the word Tactile before, "drawing of the solids".
Criterion:
"*allow 2 points if the child attempts to draw two solids"
"*allow 1 point if the child only draws one solid"
Suggestion: To include the criterion of drawing one object with roundness and one
object with straight sides.
Visualization
"Objective 1. To evaluate the child's ability to visually match a two dimensional
referent to its three dimensional solid"
113
Suggestion: To rephrase the first objective to read: To evaluate the child's ability to
identify a three dimensional solid by visually matching it with its two dimensional
referent.
Visualization Tasks:
"Item 2) building three dimensional models using geometric solids"
Suggestions: To ask the child if she/he can build more than one combination. In
other words, to allow the child to build the model with several of the possible
combinations, after she/he completes one correctly. This way I would encourage
clarity of options, to insure that I include the words "top and bottom" in the
criterion.
"*allow 1 point if the child only matches one solid"
Suggestion: To include "from the above list".
"Item c) possible combinations to build Model B-3 from the top-down sphere,
cylinder, rectangular solid..."
Comment: If the child had a rolling off problem with the sphere, would that affect
his score.
I said that the sphere has a slightly flat area that allows it to stand, and I always
showed this to the child.
Drawing of Solids
"The child draws the model presented"
Comments: Which model?. Do they have different models?
Indeed this criterion needs clarification, it's supposed to read the last model she/he
built (Model B-3).
"b) visual realism - the solids are drawn in a vertical fashion as the model.
Comment: If I was scoring the order or position of the solids"
I was scoring the correct order from top to bottom.
"c) intellectual realism - representation of conceptual knowledge of solids..."
Comment: If I was scoring correct shapes or size.
I was referring to the shapes. A child due to limitations in her/his fine motor
development can draw a circle as a cylinder.
114
These are the main points Dr. Doran brought to my attention when we met to discuss this
subject. The comments that help the clarification of the tasks and criteria were
incorporated in both instruments. The suggestions made by Dr. Doran are extremely
useful and valid and should be considered for future use of the instruments.
115
Appendix B
116
To: Marion Canedo

Buffalo Schools Superintendent
City Hall, Buffalo NY
From: Lillian M. Malave, PhD.

Department of Learning and Instruction
Director of Bilingual Program
State University of New York at Buffalo
Baldy Hall Room 563, Box 601000, Buffalo NY 14260-1000
Dear Mrs. Canedo:
The purpose of this letter is to request formal authorization from your office to
allow Mrs. Yolanda Molina-Serrano, a doctoral student from our University department,
to conduct educational research with first grade students from the Buffalo Public School
District.
Mrs. Molina is in her last stage of the doctoral degree and needs to perform
interviews with first grade students to complete the requirements of her doctoral
dissertation. Her research deals with spatial sense and drawing, two constructs identified
by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics as crucial for the development and
learning of geometry in the elementary years. The educational system is in need of this
type of research to enrich the elementary school curriculum.
We look forward to your reply and bring the formal entry Mrs. Molina needs to
pursue her research. An abstract of the proposed study is enclosed. Please call at (716)
645-2442, if any additional information is required.
Very truly yours,
Lillian M. Malave, PhD

Associate Professor
malave @acsu.buffalo.edu
117
Appendix C
118
To: Elementary School Principals

First Grade Teachers
Buffalo Schools District
From: Fillian M. Malave

Director of Bilingual Program
Dear School Principals and First Grade Teachers:
The purpose of this letter is to request your collaboration to allow Mrs. Yolanda
Molina-Serrano, a doctoral student from the University at Buffalo, to conduct educational
research with first grade students attending your school.
Mrs. Molina is in her last stage of the doctoral degree and needs to perform
interviews with first grade students to complete the requirements of her doctoral
dissertation. Her research deals with spatial sense and drawing, two constructs identified
by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics as crucial for the development and
learning of geometry in the elementary years. The educational system is in need of this
type of research to enrich the elementary school curriculum.
An abstract of the proposed study is enclosed. We look forward to your

cooperation. Please do not hesitate to contact my office at 716-645-2442, if you have any
questions.
Very truly yours,
Lillian M. Malave, PhD

Associate Professor
malave@acsu.buffalo.edu
119
Appendix D
i i s i k b h s - i a F O R M (REV m m w w w . w i n u s . buffalo,e d u / s m h s / h s i r h
www.'vmus.buffalo odu cas d.-nn h<r,-
U niversity a t B uffalo
H ealth Sciences In stitu tio n a l R eview B o a rd (H S IR B )
Social a n d B eh a v io ral Sciences In s titu tio n a l R eview B o ard (S B S IR B )
Investigation Involving H u m a n Subjects
PLEASE COM PLETE A LL QUESTIONS ON PAGE 1 AND ADDENDUM ON PAGE 2.
1. R EQ U EST F O R : XX Full R eview Expedited R eview

2. TYPE O F PRO TO CO L: XX N ew C ontinuing/R enew al S tu d e n t P ro jec t ______ C lass Project
3. P r in c ip a l in v e s tig a to r : Yolanda Molina-Serrano F a c u lty S p o n s o r: Lillian M. Malays. PhD
PI em ail address: yms@acsu.buffalo.edu Faculty S p o n so r e m ail address: malave@aCSU.buffalo.edu

department of Learning ana Instruction/Bilingual Program
D e p a rtm e n tan tjA d d ress: Baldy Hall 56Q. BOX 601000. Buffalo. NY 14260~1Q00_____________
PI#
P h o n e N u m b e r: 645~2442/hm 842~6853 Fax N um ber: 645~3162___________
4. Title of Project SPATIAL SENSE.AND REPRESENTATIONAL STRATEGIES USED BY CULTURALLY
AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE YOUNG CHILDREN DURING THEIR___________
PERFORMANCE IN SPATIAL SENSE TASKS______________________________________
5. Sites where research will be conducted. Include under “other," all sites including those outside the USA.
Check all that apply: UB BGH CHOB __ECMC MFH RIA VAMC
List all other sites: E le m e n ta r y S c h o o l( T a p e s t r y C h a r t e r ) _____________________________________
6. Source of Support: ___ Sponsored Research XX Unfunded Research
Sponsor and Sponsor Address:____________________________________________________________________________

Yv
7. Check all subjects to be enrolled. AA Minors _____ PregnantWomen ____ Students______ Employee(s) ol'PI
Prisoners Mentally 111_______ Cognitively Impaired _____ None of the Above
R ep o sito ry (dept, room #, c o m p lete address) o f files containing hum an su b jec t d ocu m en tatio n (m ust be kept 3 years follow ing
c o m p le tio n o f the study (note: hosp. m ed ical records are not su fficient): 5 6 0 B a l d y H a l 1
S ig n a tu re o f PI an d F acu lty S p o n so r ( if re q u ire d ): I affirm the accuracy o f this application, and I accept the responsibility for
the c o n d u c t o f this research , the su p erv isio n o f hum an subjects, and m a in te n an c e o f in form ed consent docum entation as required
by the H ealth Sciences Institutional R eview Board or the Social and B ehavioral Sciences Institutional R eview Board. This is to
certify that the project identified above w ill be carried out as approved by the IRB, and w ill n either be m odified nor carried out
b eyond th ejp erio d ap proved w ith o u t ex p ress review and approval by the IR B . ✓•o .
Signature D ate ‘-Faculty S ponsor Signature Date
10. S ig n a tu re o f D e p a rtm e n t C h a ir: fo r H SIR B only, the D epartm ent C hair o r D esignee m ust sign o f f on all protocols/proposals.
D ept. C h air/D esig n ee Sig n atu re (D ept. C h air c annot sign o ff on his/her p ro to co l) Date
11. S ig n a tu re o f A pproval:
IRB C hair/A uthorized R eview er Signature Date o f A pproval Date o f Expiration
5555555 ssasrrr
121
Appendix E
122
UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH PROJECT
Dear Parents and Caregivers:

My name is Yolanda Molina-Serrano and I am a doctoral student at the University
at Buffalo. I am doing research on how children learn geometry through drawings. I am
requesting your permission to conduct a 20 minutes performance interview with your
child. This interview will have educational materials such as wooden blocks, pictures and
drawings. I will ask your child to play with the blocks, compare them with pictures, build
models and draw how he/she sees the blocks.
This study is important because it will show how children who speak more than
one language use drawings to understand geometry. Working with your child is important
because previously children in this age range have not been studied in connection with
this topic. I am expecting the participation of children that speak Spanish and your child
will have his/her interview in his/her native language. I am expecting to conduct this
interview during the Summer of 2002.
Please take your time to read the following information:
1. Your child’s participation is voluntary. If you don’t want your child to participate
after you gave the permission that is ok. Even if your child does not want to
participate during the interview that is fine with me too.
2. I can assure you that there is no risk for your child to participate in this project
and all the information will be kept confidential. Your child’s name will not be
used. Instead, your child will be given a nickname to make sure nobody will
recognize him/her in any way.
3. I need to use an audio tape recorder during the interview. All the information in
the tape will be later written using the nickname.
4. I will keep all these materials in a secured place. After five years
of my dissertation completion I will destroy the information
collected.
5. I will give your child a small educational toy or puzzle appropriate for his/her age
for helping me with this project.
6. I f y o u h a v e a n y q u e stio n s o r c o n c e rn s re g a rd in g th is p ro je c t, p le a s e feel fre e to

contact me at (716) 842-6853 or yms@acsu.buffalo.edu. In addition my advisor
Lilliam M. Malave, can answer any questions. She can be reached at (716) at 645-
2442, or e-mail her at malave@acsu.buffalo.edu. Our offices address and the title
of the study are at the bottom of this page.
123
7. If you have any questions about allowing your child to participate in this research
project, you should contact (anonymously, if you wish) the Social and Behavioral
Sciences Institutional Review Board at 645-2711, or the College of Arts and
Sciences, Room 810 Clemens Hall, University at Buffalo, Buffalo NY 14260.
Thank you for taking your time to read this information. If you think that you can
help me and agree to let your child participate in this project, please fill the attached
consent form and return it to your child’s first grade teacher M rs/Mr______________or to
the person who handed it to you. I will also sign it and I will return a copy for you to
keep.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Yolanda Molina-Serrano
Title of Project: Spatial Sense and Representational Strategies used

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse First Grade Students During the Performance of
Spatial Sense Tasks
Yolanda Molina-Serrano and Dr. Lillian M. Malave

124
Appendix F
125
U N IV ER SID A D D E B U FFA LO D EL ESTA D O D E N EW YORK
IN V IT A C IO N P A R A P A R T IC IP A R E N U N P R O Y E C T O D E E S T U D IO
Estim ados Padres y Encargados:
Mi nom bre es Y olanda M olina Serrano y soy una estudiante doctoral de la U niversidad
de Buffalo. Estoy haciendo un estudio sobre com o los ninos aprenden geom etria a traves de
dibujos. Es por eso que quisiera por este m edio pedirle perm iso para realizar una entrevista de 20
m inutos con su hijo/hija. En la entrevista habra m ateriales educativos com o bloques de m adera y
dibujos. Le pedire a su hijo/hija que juegue con estos bloques, que construya algunos m odelos y
que dibuje com o el/ella ve los bloques.
E ste estudio es im portante porque nos ayudura a entender com o los ninos que hablan mas
de un idiom a utilizan dibujos al aprender geom etria. Es im portante para mi el trabajar con su
nino/nina porque no se han hecho estudios de este tipo con ninos de la edad de su hijo/hija. Yo
espero la participacion de ninos que hablen Espanol e Ingles y su hijo/hija recibira la entrevista en
su idiom a nativo. E spero hacer la entrevista durante durante este verano del 2002.
P or favor lea lo siguiente:
1. L a participacion de su hijo/hija es voluntaria. Si usted no quiere que su

hijo/hija participe aun despues de haberle dado el perm iso esta bien, y si su hijo/hija no
desea continuar la entrevista puede hacerlo.
2. L e aseguro que este proyecto no presenta ningun riesgo para su hijo/hija

y que la inform acion □ era guardada en com pleta confidencialidad. El nom bre de su
hijo/hija NO L era usado. Se le dara un nom bre ficticio o seudonim o para garantizar que
nadie lo/la reconozca..
3. N ecesito usar una grabadora durante la entrevista. L a inform acion de la

cinta sL era escrita usando el nom bre ficticio.
4. Y o guardare toda la inform acion en un lugar seguro. Al cabo de cinco anos de haber
term inado el proyecto, destruire la inform acion recogida.
5. L e voy a regalar a su hijo/hija un pequeno juguete educativo por haberm e

ayudado en este proyecto.
6. Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre este estudio, puede llam arm e a mi num ero de telefono
(716) 842-6853 o al e-m ail ym s@ acsu.buffalo.edu. Tam bien mi consejera academ ica,
Lillian M. M alave puede contestar cualquier pregunta. Puede llam arla al (716) 645-2442,
o por e-m ail al m alave@ acsu.buffalo.edu. El titulo del estudio y la direccion de nuestras
oficinas estan al pie de esta pagina.
7. D e tener alguna otra pregunta sobre el dejar que su hijo/hija participe en

este estudio de investigation, debe ponerse en contacto (puede hacerlo
anonim am ente, si asi lo desea) con la senorita L ouise Tokarsky-U nda en
la Junta de R evision Institucional de las C iencias Sociales y de la
C onducta (Social and B ehavioral Sciences Institutional Review B oard)
llam ando al 645-2711, o al C olegio de las C iencias y A rtes (College
o f A rts and Sciences), O ficina 810 del edificio C lem ens Hall, en la
126
U niversidad de B uffalo, B uffalo NY 14260.
Gracias por haber tornado de su tiem po para leer esta inform acion. Si cree que puede
ayudarm e y quiere que su hijo/hija participe, por favor llene la hoja de consentim iento adjunta y
enviela al/a m aestro/m aestra de prim er grado de su hijo/hija, el Sr./la Sra o a
la persona que se lo entrego. Yo firm are la hoja y le m andare una copia para que usted la guarde.
Sinceram ente,
Sra. Y olanda M olina-Serrano
Titulo del Estudio: Sentido Espacial y Estrategias de R epresentacion U tilizadas

por Estudiantes de Prim er G rado Procedentes de C ulturas y
L enguas D iferentes D urante la R ealization de Tareas de
Sentido Espacial
Yolanda M olina-Serrano
Dra. Lillian M. M alave
D epartam ento de Instruction y Ensenanza
U niversidad del Estado de N ueva Y ork en B uffalo
E dificio B aldy H all 507, BOX 601000 B uffalo, N Y 14260-1000
127
Appendix G
128
UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
Title of Project: Spatial Sense and Representational Strategies used

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse First Grade Students During the
Performance of Spatial Sense Tasks.
Informed Consent and Audio Tape Release Form
Doctoral Student: Yolanda Molina-Serrano, Doctoral Student

Phone: (716)842-6853
e-mail: vmstSacsu.buffalo.edu
Academic Advisor: Dr. Lillian M. Malave

Department o f Learning and Instruction
State University o f New York at Buffalo
Baldy Hall Room 507, Box 601000,
Buffalo NY 14260-1000
Phone: 645-2442, FAX 645-3162

e-mail: malave@acsu.buffalo.edu
I,______________________________ have read the explanation about Mrs. Molina-

(print your name here)
Serrano’s research and I voluntarily agree to have my child participate in the performance interview of this
study. I give my child I consent to be audio taped/during this study. My signature on this consent form
shows that I have been informed and understand the conditions of this research. I have been given a copy of
this consent form.
Child’s Name Parent’s Signature and Date
“I certify that I obtained the consent of the parent whose signature is above. I understand that I must give a
signed copy of the informed consent form to the parent, and keep the original copy in my files for 3 years.
(signature of doctoral student) Date
129
Appendix H
130
U N IV ER SID A D D E B U FFA LO D E L E ST A D O D E NEW Y ORK
Titulo del Estudio: Sentido Espacial y Estrategias de R epresentacion U tilizadas

Estudiantes de Prim er G rado procedentes de C ulturas y
L enguas D iferentes D urante la Realizacion de Tareas de
Sentido Espacial
HOJA DE CONSENTIMIENTO
Estudiante Doctoral: Yolanda Molina-Serrano, Estudiante Doctoral

Telefono: (716) 842-6853
e-mail: vms@acsu.buffalo.edu
Consejera Academica: Dra. Lillian M. Malave

Departamento de Instruccion y Ensenanza
Universidad del Estado de Nueva York en Buffalo
Edificio Baldy Hall 507, BOX 601000
Buffalo, NY 14260-1000
Telefono: (716) 645-2442, FAX (716) 645-3162

e-mail: malave@acsu.buffalo.edu
Yo,_____________________________________certifico que he letdo la

(escriba aqui su nom bre)
explicacion acerca del estudio de la Sra. M olina Serrano y voluntariam ente consiento que mi
hijo/hija participe en la entrevista de este estudio. D oy consentim iento a que mi hijo/hija sea
audio grabado. M i firm a en esta hoja de consentim iento atestigua que he sido inform ado/a y
entiendo las condiciones del estudio. Se m e dio una copia de esta hoja de consentim iento.
(escriba aqui nombre de su hijo/hija) (firme aqui con su nombre y fecha)
“Certifico que he obtenido el consentim iento del padre o encargado que firm o arriba. Entiendo
que debo proveerle una copia firm ada de este docum ento y que el original sera guardado por tres
anos en mis archivos.
(Firma de la estudiante doctoral) Fecha
131
Appendix I
132
Name:__________________________ Age:_____________ Date:___________________

Sex:______________ Ethnicity_______________________ Language:_________________
Title : Spatial Sense and Representational Strategies used by Culturally and

Linguistically Diverse Lirst Grade Students during the Performance of Spatial Sense
Tasks
Materials
The children will use a set of 18 wooden geometric solids, during the interview.
The solids of this set measure from 1 to 3 V2 inches. The 18 wooden solids are: a 1” x 3”
cylinder, a cube, a sphere, a cone, a square prism, an equilateral triangular prism, a square
pyramid, a 2" x 2" cylinder, a hemisphere, an isosceles right triangular prism, a parabola-
cut cone, an ellipsoid, a triangular pyramid, a plane cone, an axis-cut cone, a rectangular,
hexagonal and an octagonal prism. An empty 32-ounce coffee can designed and labeled
for this study “The Mystery Can” will be used. The can is lined with a 2” thick foam at its
lip. The foam has a 5” diameter hole cut in the center. A piece of stretch fabric is placed
over the foam and through the center hole. The fabric hangs inside the can to block any
view the students may have of the solids at the bottom of the can. The fabric goes
approximately half way down the can and has a funnel-like end. It will also cling to the
students’ wrist once their hand is in the can. Two wooden geometric solids, a 1" x 3"
cylinder and a 2" x 2" cube will be placed inside the can.
Paper and pencil will be provided for students to draw the solids. Seven line
drawings will be used for all the visualization tasks (see Ligures 1 through 7). An audio
recorder will be used to record the students’ responses during the tasks. There will be a
table with two chairs, one for the researcher and one for the child.
After completion of the interview, the child will be given a wooden puzzle, or a
similarly developmentally-age appropriate toy/puzzle, as a reward for his/her
participation in the study. This interview will also be provided in Spanish to use with
children for whom Spanish is their native language.
Introduction
"Hi. M y name is Yolanda and I am a parent and also a student doing my
homework, I need your help. I asked your mom/dad if she/he would let you help me and
133
she/he said okay. I need to ask you to do certain things with this can (researcher shows
the Mystery Can) and with this box (researcher shows the closed wooden box that
contains 16 geometric solids). If you think you don't want to do it let me know and you
can go back to your classroom. Would you like to help me"?
If the child agrees, the researcher will tell the child that she will be recording their
conversation:
"I also need to record everything that we talk about on this recorder because when
you finish I won't be able to remember all the things you’ve said to me. Is that okay with
you”? If the child does not want to be recorded, but is willing to participate in the
interview, the researcher will proceed with the interview and will take field notes, after
asking the child’s permission to take notes: “Well, if you don’t want to use the tape
recorder I will need to write down the things that you do. Is that ok with you”? If the
child does not agree to field notes, the researcher will conduct the interview respecting
the child’s decision not to be recorded or written about.
Tactile Perception Task
In this first stimulus, the child will be expected to manipulate geometric wooden
solids hidden in a metal can labeled "The Mystery Can". Several questions will be asked
to elicit the child's responses about what is inside of the can. The researcher will model
the act of introducing her hand into the can in case she encounters a child that might be
frightened by the idea of placing his/her hand into something that he/she cannot see what
is inside. Prompts are allowed to elicit children responses. The researcher will ask the
following:
A. Description of Solids
1. “Can you show me which hand do you use for writing”?

2. “Will you please put your other hand in this Mystery Can”?
3. “Now tell me, what do you think is in the can? Can you describe what are you
touching”? (The researcher will use the child’s responses to label the solids for this part
only).
134
4. “How many are you touching”?

5. “What kind of material is/are that/those_______ made of?”
6. “What do you think these/those is/are made made for”?
B. Tactile contour drawing
6. “W ithout taking your hand out of the Mystery Can, can you draw me a picture of
what you are touching without looking at it/them? Use your free hand” .
The researcher will hand a blank sheet of paper and pencil to the child. After the
completion of the drawing, the researcher will allow the child to take out the geometric
solids from the can and to compare them with his/her drawings. The researcher will ask
the following:
7. “Out of those that you drew, could tell me which drawing is this one; and this one”?
(Researcher points to the solids).
After the child completes the above activity, the researcher will give the child a
wooden box filled with the rest of the 16 geometric wooden solids to allow the child to
manipulate and play with the solids. The researcher will ask the following question to the
child:
8. “Have you seen these before”? (Referring to the geometric solids).
9. “These are called geometric solids. W hat do you think these solids are made for”?
Once the child gets used to the solids, the researcher will proceed with the next
step. The child should not be rushed during the course of this interview, and enough time
should be provided for each child to play with the solids.
Visualization Tasks:
A. Visualization Task #1 Visual Matching of Solids with Orthographic Views
The researcher will present the child with four orthographic drawings: 1) a square
prism, 2) a 2" x 2" cylinder, 3) a cone, and 4) a square base pyramid. The orthographic
views are technical drawings that consist of the front and top/bottom of the listed solids.
These drawings have no shading, perspective or three-dimensional illusion. They are
black line drawings on white paper. The researcher will continue with the task by stating:
10. “As you can see, some solids have a top and a bottom that are quite different, like
this one (shows the parabola-cut cone solid to the child from the wooden box). Other
135
solids have a front, a top and a bottom that are also different, like this one” (shows the
hemisphere to the child from the wooden box).
11. “I am going to show you a few pictures of some solids that we have here. These
pictures show either the top or the bottom, and the front of some solids of this box (points
to the box where the rest of the geometric wooden solids are.) You have to tell me which
one of these solids is the same as the one in the picture. Remember that only one solid is
the same” .
12. The interviewer will present the drawing of the square prism to the child and ask:
"Will you find the same solid that goes with this picture”?, (the investigator shows
Model A -l to the child).
Model A -l
If the child presents two solids as an answer, the researcher will remind the child:
"Remember there is one solid for that picture".
13. The interviewer will present the drawing of the 2”x 2” cylinder to the child and ask:
“Will you find the same solid that goes with this picture?”, (the investigator shows Model
A-2 to the child).
Model A-2
136
14. The interviewer will present the drawing of the cone to the child and ask: "Will you
find the same solid that goes with this picture?”, (the investigator shows Model A-3 to the
child).
Model A-3
"Remember there is only one solid for that picture" or will use any other appropriate
prompt.
15. The interviewer will present the drawing of the square pyramid to the child and ask
“Will you find the same solid that goes with this picture”?, (the investigator shows Model
A-3 to the child).
M odel A-3. Orthographic view of a square base pyramid
137
"Remember there is only one solid for that picture", or any other appropriate prompt.
At all times the researcher will be willing to clarify any concerns or questions the
child might have regarding the task. If the child seems confused during the administration
of these tasks or keeps selecting more than one solid for the picture in question, the
researcher will ask the child for each solid presented, and will proceed to finish the task.
C. Visualization Task # 2 - Constructing a three-dimensional structure
In the next task the researcher will present a child with four visual structures.
These visual stimuli are orthographic drawings that depict no shading, perspective or
three-dimensional illusion. The researcher will ask the child if he/she can build the
structures portrayed in the pictures. The first two visual stimulus will be constructed by
the child and disassembled by the researcher, and the last one will be left erected.
16. "I am going to show you three pictures and I need you to build them using those
solids, (researcher points to the box filled with geometric solids).
17. “Now take some solids out of that box and try to build this”? (Interviewer will show
the Model B -l to the child).
Model B -l
If the child uses different solids than the expected, the investigator will ask: “Why
did you select those solids”? “Are those the same solids that this picture have”? If the
correct solids are selected, the investigator will ask: “What does this structure look like to
you”? (After the child’s responses the researcher will disassemble the structure
proceeding to the next stimulus.)
18. “Please, build this one now”, (presents Model B-2 to the child).
138
Model B-2
did you select those solids”? “Are those the same solids that this picture have?”. If the
you”? (After the child’s responses the researcher will disassemble the structure
proceeding to the next stimulus).
19. “And this one, build this one please”?, (the researcher presents Model B-3).
Model B-3
did you select those solids”? “Are those the same solids that this picture have”? If the
you”? (After the child’s responses, the researcher will remove the structure proceeding to
the last spatial task.)
C. Visualization Task #3 - Free-hand drawing of a Three-Dimensional Model
The researcher will construct a model and ask the child to draw this structure built (see
orthographic view of Model B-4.)
139
20. “Now I want you to draw this figure by just looking at it”, (the researcher will point
to the erected figure).
21. After the child completes his/her drawing the researcher will answer any questions or
concern the child might have regarding the tasks by asking: “Do you have any questions
about the things we just did”?
22. After answering the child’s questions the investigator will conclude the interview by
saying: “Well, I think we are done. I have a toy puzzle for you for helping me with my
homework. Thank you so much for your cooperation”.
140
Appendix J
141
Titulo: Sentido Espacial y Estrategias de Representation Utilizadas por

Ninos de Primer Grado Provenientes de Culturas y Lenguas
Diferentes durante la Realization de Tareas de Sentido Espacial
Investigadora Principal: Sra. Yolanda Molina-Serrano
Auspiciada por la Facultativa: Dra. Lillian L. Malave
Entrevista para Conducir las Tareas de Sentido Espacial
M ateriales
Durante la entrevista los ninos usaran un set de 18 solidos geometricos de madera.

Los solidos de madera miden desde 1” de ancho hasta 3 1/2” de ancho. Los 18 solidos
son: un cilindro de l ”x3”, un cubo, una esfera, un cono, un prisma cuadrado, un prisma
triangular equilatero, una piramide cuadrada, un cilindro de 2”x2”, un hemisferio, un
prisma triangular isoceles, un cono parabolico cortado, un elipsoide, una piramide
triangular, un cono piano, un cono de axis recortado, un prisma rectangular, otro
hexagonal y otro prisma octagonal. Se utilizara una lata vacia de cafe de 32onz, y
cubierta con un dibujo que dice: “The Mystery Can”. Dentro y alrededor de su abertura,
la lata tiene una cobertura de espuma sintetica (foam) de 2” de ancho. Este “foam” tiene
una abertura central de 5” de diametro. Un pedazo de tela de nilon cuelga de la abertura
cubriendo la entrada de la lata para evitar que los estudiantes miren dentro de la lata y
vean su fondo. La tela llega hasta la mitad de la lata terminando en un embudo. Un vez
que el estudiante introduzca su mano en el embudo de tela este se adherira a su mano.
Los estudiantes recibiran papel y lapiz para dibujar. Siete dibujos ortograficos
seran usados durante las tareas de visualization (vea las figuras que seguiran).Se utilizara
una grabadora de sonido grabar las respuestas de los estudiantes durante las tareas. Una
mesa y dos sillas estaran disponibles para el uso del investigador y del estudiante. Se
espera que la entrevista dure 20 minutos.
Luego que se complete la entrevista, el estudiante recibira un juguete educativo en
forma de rompecabezas por haber participado en el estudio. Esta entrevista se hara en
ingles para aquellos ninos anglo parlantes. La duration de esta entrevista es de
aproximadamente 20 minutos.
Introduction
142
“Hola, Mi nombre es Yolanda y al igual que tu, yo tambien soy una estudiante
que tiene que hacer una asignacion, pero para esta asignacion voy a necesitar de tu ayuda.
Yo le pregunte a tu mama/papa (etc), y ella/el me dijo que estaba bien que tu trabajaras
conmigo. Yo necesito que tu hagas algunas cosas con esta lata (investigador ensena la
Lata Misteriosa/Mystery Can) y con esta caja (investigador ensena la caja de madera
cerrada que contiene 16 solidos geometricos), pero si tu no quieres ayudarme dfmelo y
puedes regresar al salon. ^Me vas a ayudar?”. Si el estudiante accede el investigador le
informara de que va a grabarlo:
“Yo necesito grabar lo que vamos a hablar en esta grabadora, porque cuando tu
termines no me voy a acordar de todas las cosas que me vas a decir. Êsta bien que te
grabe?” Si el nino no quiere ser grabado, pero quiere participar en la entrevista, el
entrevistador procedera con la entrevista siempre y cuando el nino le permita tomar notas.
“Bueno si no quieres que te grabe entonces voy a tener que escribir todo lo que me vas a
decir. ^Lo puedo hacer? Si el nino tampoco accede, el entrevistador terminara la
entrevista y le dara un incentivo al nino.
Tarea de Perception H aytica
En este primer estfmulo se espera que el nino manipule solidos geometricos

escondidos en una lata de metal rotulada “the Mystery Can” o “la Lata M isteriosa”. Se le
haran algunas preguntas al nino sobre el contenido de la lata. El investigador modelara el
acto de introducir la mano dentro de la lata, para evitar que algun nino se sienta asustado
de que tiene que meter su mano dentro de cuyo interior no puede ver. El investigador
preguntara lo siguiente:
1. “Me puedes ensenar la mano que tu usas para escribir?”
2. “Ahora mete tu otra mano dentro de esta Lata Misteriosa”
3. “Dime que crees que hay dentro de esa lata? ^Que estas tocando? (el investigador usara
los nombres que el nino ponga a los objetos durante esta tarea). ^Puedes decribir eso/s
que esta dentro de la lata?
4. “^Cuanto/s____________ hay en la lata”?
5. “^Para que crees que se usa/n eso/esos__________ que estas en la lata”
6. “Sin sacar tu mano de la Lata Misteriosa, ^puedes dibujarme lo que esta dentro de lata?
Usa tu mano libre.
143
El investigador le dara al nino un papel y lapiz para hacer los dibujos. Luego que
el nino complete su dibujo, el investigador dejara que el nino saque los solidos de la lata
y compare los mismos con su dibujo. Le preguntara lo siguiente:
7. “De esos que dibujaste, dime cual dibujo es este (le senalara el cilindro), y este”? (le
senalara el cubo).
Luego que el estudiante complete la actividad anterior, el investigador le dara la
caja de madera que contiene los restantes 16 solidos geometricos para que los manipule y
juege con ellos. El investigador le preguntara lo siguiente:
8. “Has visto esos anteriormente”? (refiriendose a los solidos geometricos) ^Donde?
9. “Estos se llaman solidos geometricos. ^Para que crees que se usan estos solidos?
Una vez que el nino se acostumbre a los solidos y termine de explorarlos y de
jugar con ellos, el investigador procedera a la proxima etapa. El nino no debe ser ajorado
durante el curso de la entrevista y suficiente tiempo debe proveerse para que el nino
juegue con los solidos.
Tareas de Visualization
A. Pareo visual de solidos con vistas ortograficas
El investigador le presentara al estudiante cuatro dibujos de vista ortografica de
los siguientes solidos: 1) un prisma cuadrado, 2) un cilindro de 2’x2”, 3) un cono, y 4)
una piramide de base cuadrada. Las vistas ortograficas utilizadas son dibujos tecnicos que
muestran vistas de frente, tope o lados de los solidos mencionados. Estos dibujos no
tienen sombra, perspectiva o ninguna ilusion de tercera dimension. Son dibujos en bianco
y negro impresos en papel bianco. El investigador continuara con la entrevista senalando
lo siguiente:
10. “Como ves, algunos solidos tienen un tope y un fondo que es diferente, como este,
(toma la parabola de cono recortada de la caja de solidos y se la muestra al nino). Otros
solidos tienen una frente, y un tope que tambien es diferente, como este” (de la caja de
solidos, le muestra el hemisferio al nino).
11. “Te voy a ensenar varios dibujos de algunos solidos que estan en esta caja. Estos
dibujos muestran el tope, o el fondo, o el frente de algunos solidos (le indica la caja
donde el se encuentra el resto de los solidos geometricos), tendras que decirme ^cual de
estos dibujos es igual al solido. Solamente encontraras un dibujo para cada solido”.
144
12. El investigador le presentara al nino el dibujo del prisma cuadrado y le preguntar: “

^Cual solido es igual a este dibujo?”
M odeloA-1
Si el estudiante selecciona mas de solido como respuesta el investigador le dira lo

siguiente: “Recuerda que hay solo un solido para ese dibujo”.
13. El investigador le presentara el dibujo del cilindro que mide 2”x2” al nino y le
preguntara: “ ^Cual solido es igual a este dibujo?”.
Modelo A-2
Si el nino selecciona mas de un solido como respuesta el investigador le repetira al nino
lo siguiente: “Recuerda que hay solo un solido para ese dibujo” .
14. El investigador le presentara al nino el dibujo del cono y le preguntara:
“^Cual solido es igual a este dibujo?”
A
o
Modelo A-2
15. El investigador le presentara al nino el dibujo de la piramide cuadrada y le

preguntara:
“^Cual solido es igual a este dibujo?”.
Si el nino selecciona mas de un solido como respuesta el investigador le repetira:

“Recuerda que hay solo un solido para ese dibujo”.
Modelo A-3
En todo momento el investigador estara dispuesto a contestar cualquier duda o
pregunta que el nino pueda tener concemiente a las tareas espaciales. Si el nino parece
estar confundido o continua seleccionando mas de un solido por cada dibujo, el
investigador continuara preguntando la misma pregunta hasta, y permitira que el nino
complete la actividad.
B. Construction de una estructura de tres dimensiones
En la proxima tarea el investigador presentara al nino cuatro estfmulos de
estructuras visuales. Estos estfmulos visuales son dibujos ortograficos que no muestran
146
sombra, perspectiva o ilusion de profundidad. El investigador le preguntara al nino si el

puede construir las estructuras de los dibujos que le presentara a continuation:
16. “Voy a ensenarte tres dibujos y quiero que tu los hagas usando esos solidos”, (le
senala la caja de solidos geometricos).
17. “Ahora construye este”, (le muestra el Modelo B -l al nino).
Modelo B -l
Si el nino escoje solidos incorrectos para hacer el modelo, el investigador le preguntara:
“^Porque seleccionaste esos solidos? ^Se parecen esos solidos al dibujo? Luego que el
nino construya la estructura el investigador le preguntara: “Â que se te parece ese
modelo”? Despues de la contestacion el investigador desmantelara la estructura y
procedera al proximo estfmulo.
18. “Ahora construye este” (le muestra el Modelo B-2 al nino).
Modelo B-2
Si el nino escoje solidos incorrectos para hacer el modelo, el investigador le preguntara:
“^Porque seleccionaste esos solidos? i Se parecen esos solidos al dibujo? Luego que el
nino construya la estructura el investigador le preguntara: “i A que se te parece ese
modelo?” Despues de la contestacion el investigador desmantelara la estructura y
procedera al proximo estfmulo.
147
19. “Ahora construye este” (le muestra el Modelo B-3 al nino).
Modelo B-3
Si el nino escoje solidos incorrectos para hacer el modelo, el investigador volvera a

preguntarle: “«yPorque seleccionaste esos solidos? Se parecen esos solidos al dibujo?
Luego que el nino construya la estructura, el investigador le preguntara: “Â que se te
parece ese modelo?” (despues de la contestacion el desmantelara la estructura y
procedera con la proxima tarea espacial).
Dibujo naturalista de un modelo tridimensional
El investigador armara un modelo (ver Modelo B-4), y le pedira al nino que
dibuje esta estructura.
20. “Ahora dibuja esta figura con tan solo mirarla?” .
21. Una vez que el nino complete este dibujo, el investigador le dira al nino: “Tienes
alguna pregunta de lo que hemos hecho?” .El investigador procedera a contestar cualquier
pregunta que el nino haga y tratara de terminar la entrevista diciendo lo siguiente: “Bueno
creo que hemos terminado. Tengo este juguete/rompecabezas para ti por haberme
ayudado. Muchas gracias por tu cooperacion”
148
Appendix K
149
Scoring Rubric for Spatial Sense and Representational Strategies

Used by Diverse Young Children During the Performance of Spatial Sense Tasks
I. Guide to Rate the Spatial Sense Tasks Max Total Score: 25 points
A. Tactile Perception - Mystery Can Total Max points 8
1. Objective:
To evaluate the child's ability to make visual and pictorial inferences based on tactile or
cutaneous information.
a. Tactile (Tactile) Perception Task - The child will be sensing, describing,
identifying, naming, labeling and drawing two wooden geometric solids hidden
inside a can: a 1" x 3" cylinder and a 2" x 2" cube
(1) Descritption of solids - Includes but is not limited to kind, name, specification,
particulars, graphics, draw a picture 6 points total
2. Indicators:
a. Interview questions that will produce a score for this section:
“3) What do you think is in the can”?
“4) Can you describe what you are touching”?
“5) How many are you touching”?
“6) W hat kind of material is/are these/those_______ made of?
“7) What is/are these/those________made for?”
b. Identify the solids with appropriate and acceptable geometrical or mathematical
related labels, names and descriptions
c. Describe two solids inside the can by sensing them (a 1" x 3" cylinder and a 2" x 2"
cube); giving their property shapes or by counting the solids.
150
3. Criteria
• allow 1 point for each valid answer up to a maximum of 6 points
a. Sample of acceptable geometrical descriptions for the 1x3 cylinder:
• cylinder • three sides • circle • two circles • line • one • block • shape
• two faces
b. Sample of acceptable geometrical related descriptions for the cube:
• cube • square • dice • six sides • one face • block • shape
c. Sample of acceptable geometrical related descriptions for both solids
• blocks • shapes • solids • geometric solids • objects • two • building blocks
• wooden blocks
d. Sample of acceptable tactile related description for the 1x3 cylinder
• roll • roller • lip-gloss • chalk • crayon • snout • stick • long • round • thin
e. Sample of acceptable tactile related descriptions for the cube
• edgy • splintery • chunky • box • pointy • edges
f . Sample of acceptable tactile related descriptions for both solids
• things • wood • soft • hard • objects
• no points if the child names the objects differently to the above criteria or if the
description given does not resemble the solids’ properties.
g. Sample of unacceptable responses:
• butterfly • cup • doll • cold • another • oval
(2) Tactile contour drawing of the solids 2 points total
4. Indicator:
a. Using his/her free hand the child attempts to draw the solids while sensing
151
them with the hand that is already inside the can
5. Criteria:
• allow 2 points if the child attempts to draw two solids (one object with roundness
and another one with four straight sides)
• allow 1 point if child only draws 1 object (only one object with roundness or only
one with straight sides)
• no points if the child does not draw the objects hidden inside the can or if the
child’s drawing does not have any resemblance with the object hidden from sight
(e.g. the child draws a doll, car, human face, etc)
B. Visualization Tasks Total Max points 17
1. Objectives:
a. To evaluate the child's ability to identify a three dimensional solid and visually match
it with its two dimensional referent
b. To evaluate the child's ability to construct a three dimensional model using a visual
referent.
c. To evaluate the child's pictorial rendering of a three dimensional structure/visual
model into a two dimensional plane
2. Task # 1: Visual Matching of four orthographic drawings 4 points total
The child will match orthographic views of the top and front of a square prism,
a 2" x 2" cylinder, a cone and a square base pyramid
a. Indicator: The child selects the appropriate solid and matches it with its
152
two dimensional referent
b. Criteria:
• allow 1 point for each visual matching of the two sides displayed for the following
geometric solids:
A -l Square prism A-3 Cone
A-2 2" x 2" Cylinder A-4 Square base pyramid
• no credit if the child uses more than one solid for each orthographic representation
3. Task #2 Construction of a three-dimensional structure 10 points total
a. Indicators:
a .l) The child builds a vertical structure, using the correct amount of appropriate
geometric wooden solids, after viewing an orthographic representation of the
model maintaining visual resemblance with the original
b. Criteria:
153
b .l Possible combinations to build Model B - l from top down 3 points total
< Top Solid
< Middle Solid
< Bottom Solid
Model B - l
• Top Solid - hexagonal prism, octagonal prism
• Middle Solid - cube, 2x2 cylinder
• Bottom Solid - cube, 2x2 cylinder
b.2 Scoring Model B -l
• allow 3 points if any of the combinations are done from top down
• allow 2 points if the child only matches two solids and uses a
different solid than the hexagonal or octagonal prisms for the top figure
• allow 1 point if the child only matches one solid from the above list
• no credit if the child uses three different solids than the specified above
• no points if the structure does not maintain visual reference with original
model
b.3 Possible combinations to build Model B -2 3 points total
A < Top Solid
< Middle Solid
< Bottom Solid
Model B -2
• Top solid - cone, axis cut cone, plane cone, square base pyramid, triangular
pyramid
154
• Middle Solid - rectangular solid with its 1 1 / 2 x 1 3/4 side in an upright
position
b.4. Scoring Model B-2
• allow 3 points if any of the combinations are done from top down
• allow 2 points if the child only matches two solids and uses a different solid
than the solids specified above
• allow 1 point if the child only matches one solid from the above list
• no credit if the child uses three different solids than the specified above
• no points if the structure does not maintain visual reference with its original
model
• no points if the child uses an incorrect orientation of the top solid by
showing a vertical axis
• no points if the model constructed for the child does not stands by itself
b.5 Possible combinations to build Model B - 3 4 points total
< Top Solid
< Middle Solid A
< Middle Solid B
< Bottom Solid
Model B -3
• Top Solid - sphere, ellipsoid, 2x2 cylinder
• Middle Solid A - 1x3 cylinder, square prism, triangular prism
• Middle Solid B - rectangular solid ( 1 1 / 2 x 1 3/4 side upright)
155
b.6 Scoring Model B-3
• allow only 4 points if any of the above combinations are done top down
• allow 3 points if the child only matches three solids
• allow 2 points if the child only matches two solids
• allow 1 point if the child only matches one solid
• no credit if the child uses three different solids than the ones specified
above
4. Task # 3Free-hand drawing of a Three Dimensional Model or Structure
a. Indicators: Max Points 3
The child draws the model presented (Model B-4).
b. Scoring the Free-hand drawing - The drawing should have the following
characteristics:
• the correct amount of solids
• the solids are drawn in a vertical fashion as the model, even if the sides are not
touching or seemed to be floating
• the solids conforms with cultural canons when they are represented by one of the
following:
1) canonical representation (drawing contains the important features necessary for
recognition)
2) have the illusion of depth (visual realism) or 3D
3) drawn using the orthographic projection (lines producing a flat image)
c. Criteria: 3 points total
• allow 3 points if the above elements are present in the drawing
156
• allow 2 points if two of the above elements are present in the drawing
• allow 1 points if one of the above elements are present in the drawing
C. Maximum Spatial Sense Tasks Score: 25 points total
1. Child's score in Tactile Perception: _____ _
2. Child's score in Visualization: _______
Criteria
• Score the drawings if each element is present in the two tactile contour drawings
II. Guide to Classify the Representational Strategies
A. Objectives:
1. To assess the child’s representational strategies used in the tactile contour
drawings of two geometric solids hidden from sight in relation to:
a) drawing devices - scribble, schematic
b) drawing systems - orthographic, vertical, horizontal and oblique
projections, projective properties, perspective, canonical representation and
intellectual realism
c) other projective property
2. To assess the child’s representational strategies used and in the free-hand 3D
drawing in relation to:
a) drawing systems
b) drawing devices
c) other
A. Representational Strategies in Tactile Contour Drawings of a Cylinder
a. Drawing systems
(1) scribble - a not recognizable drawing or just marks on a paper (Toomela, 1999)
157
(2) schematic - the solid is presented by a single face or by a general outline of the figure
(Mitchelmore, 1978)
(3) orthographic - drawing shows only the front, top or side faces of an object (Willats,
1984, 1997)
(4) oblique projections - the projection rays are parallel and intersect the picture plane at
either an oblique angle in the horizontal or vertical plane (Willats, 1984, 1997)
(5) naive perspective - a halfway system between oblique projection and true perspective
(Willats, 1997)
(6) canonical representations - when the depiction of an object (cylinder) is in an
orientation that contains the important structural features necessary for recognition
(Freeman, 1980)
(7) dissection - the drawing of the cylinder contains divisions dividing the object
into three parallel sections (Nicholls & Kennedy, 1992)
b. Drawing Devices
(1) fold-outs - the features of the solid are outlined and connected by lines that stand for
edges of the object (Kennedy, 1984); slanted sides are attached to the rectangular area
of the cylinder creating an illusion of visual ‘explosion’ of the object (based on
Caron-Pargue, 1985 and Nicholls & Kennedy’s definition 1992)
B. Representational Strategies in Tactile Contour Drawings of a Cube
a. Drawing Systems
(1) scribble - a not recognizable drawing or just marks on a paper (Toomela,
1999); the paper is filled with disjunct shapes similar to ovals, circles or rectangles
158
(Caron-Pargue, 1992)
(1) schematic - the cube is presented by a single face or by a general outline of the
figure (Caron-Pargue, 1992; Mitchelmore, 1978
(2) orthographic projection - drawing shows only the front, top or side faces of the object
(cube) (Willats, 1984)
(4) vertical oblique projection - when the front and the top are combined (Willats, 1984,
1997)
(5) horizontal oblique projection - when two views, the front and the side, are put
together (Willats, 1984, 1997)
(6) square with oblique projections - a side or face of the cube is drawn so that it
appeared to extend horizontally or vertically from a single square representing the
front face (Mitchelmore, 1987)
(7) perspective - when the lines are used with reference to the spectator’s point of view,
giving the illusion of depth (Dubery & Willats, 1972)
(8) isometric projections - an alternative form of oblique projection, with the top, side
and front views drawn as true length at equal angles to each other (Dubery & Willats,
1972)
(9) dissection - a drawing of a square that contain divisions inside the square (Nicholls &
Kennedy, 1992)
(10) canonical representation - drawing has one-sided representation where the
characteristic and salient features are added (Freeman, 1980)
b. Drawing devices
(1) fold-outs - the features of the solid (cube) are outlined and connected by lines that
159
stand for edges of the object (Kennedy, 1984); sides are attached to the square area of
the cube creating an illusion of visual ‘explosion’ of the object (based on Caron-
Pargue, 1985 and Nicholls & Kennedy’s definitions 1992)
(3) accurate fold-outs - the solid (cube) is drawn as it has been opened with all its sides
connected, as an origami display that can be folded back into a box (based on an
interpretation of Nicholls & Kennedy, 1992)
(3) frontal vertex with Y or T junction - drawings in which the front vertex of the cube
was represented by a Y and a base vertex by a T - junction (Nicholls & Kennedy,
1992)
C. Representational Strategies in a Free-hand 3D drawing
a. Drawing Systems Indicators:
(1) orthographic projection or the use of parallel lines producing an impression
of flatness (Willats, 1984, 1997)
(2) horizontal oblique projection or when two views, the front and the side, are
put together (Willats, 1984, 1997)
(1) vertical oblique projection or when the front and the top are combined (Willats,
1984, 1997)
(4) linear perspective or when the lines are used with reference to the spectator’s
point of view, giving the illusion of depth (Willats, 1984, 1997)
(5) Canonical representations or intellectual realism:
(a) drawings have structural features necessary for recognition (Davis, 1985;
Freeman, 1980)
160
(b) drawings have intrinsic properties of the object rather than views and child
draws what he/she knows rather than what he/she sees (Luquet in Davis, 1985)
(c) drawing where the details of an object have been simplified, i.e. square
as a cube (Phillips et al, 1978)
b. Drawing Devices Indicators:
(1) segregation or moving objects in a picture relative to oneself (Freeman, 1980)
(2) hidden line elimination or partial occlusion when intersecting lines are not displayed
in the drawing (Freeman, 1980)
(3) interposition or transparency - the full representation of boundary lines crossing
one another (Freeman, 1980)
d. Other
(1) Drawing displays primitive geometric salient features
(2) Drawing combines drawing systems and devices
Criteria
• Classify the drawing if each element is present in the two drawings
1. tactile contour drawing and the copy of a three-dimensional model)
2. Free-hand drawing of a three-dimensional model
• classify the drawings in “other” if none of the described above are not present in
the drawing
161
APPENDIX L
¥02 -
*8<t
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
■#0lo
f0 1
a to
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4 14
c y
d £ lt/
n
. 1
#15
J
# i7
ih o
^11
$ n
-#23
•if oLU>
#28
m
te i
R
#23
^ 3?
#37
#38
#27
±40
162
APPENDIX M
^0$
^10
4 ^
Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

■ « nf the copyright owner. Further rep
Reproduced with permission of the copy
.Sl
P -l
4X1
$1*
itto
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Out PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Out PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SPATIAL SENSE AND REPRESENTATIONAL STRATEGIES

USED BY CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY

DIVERSE FIRST GRADE STUDENTS

DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF SPATIAL SENSE TASKS

A dissertation submitted to the

Department o f Learning and Instruction

Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

List of Figures.............................................. IX-X

Spatial Sense and Young Children......................................................................................... 1-3

Tactile Perception....................................................................................................... 3-6

Drawing Geometric Solids: Cube and Cylinder....................................................6-14

Visual M atching....................................................................................................... 16-17

Free-hand 3D Drawing .................................................................................. 17-21

Representational Strategies through Drawing................................................................... 21-23

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Young Children....................................................23-25

General Statement of the Problem...................................... 26

Significance of the Study...............................................................................................27

Definition of Terms.................................................................................................. 28-32

Procedures for Data Collection.................................................................................................37

Oral and Performance Interview for Spatial Sense Tasks.................................. 41-42

Tactile Perception Tasks............................................................................42-44

Visualization Tasks.................................................................................... 44-49

Free-hand 3D Drawing........................................................... 49-50

Instruments of Assessment.............................. 50-52

Scoring the Tactile Perception Tasks....................................................... 53-54

Scoring the Visualization Tasks................................................................54-56

Classification of Representational Strategies.......................................... 56-60

Variables and Research Questions.............................................................................. 62

Independent Variable.................................................................................. 62-63

Dependent Variables and Research Questions............................................. 63

Research Question 1....................................................................................63-64

Research Question 2 ........................................................................................64

Research Question 3 ...................................................................................64-66

Research Question 4 ...................................................................................66-67

Analysis for Research Questions 1-3........................................................................ 68

Research Question 1.................................................................................. 68-70

Research Question 2 .................................................................................. 70-71

Research Question 3 ............................. , ................................................... 71-72

Analyses for Research Questions 4-5....................................................................... 72

Research Question 4 ................................................................................... 72-76

Research Question 5 ................................................................................... 76-78

Other Results.............................................................................................. 78-80

Discussion of the Results...........................................................................................................81

Discussion of Findings: One-Way Analysis of Variances.......................................81

Research Question 1...................................................................................81-82

Research Question 2 ........................... 82

Research Question 3 ....................................................................................82-83

Research Question 4 ....................................................................................83-87

Research Question 5 ....................................................................................88-93

Other Drawing Categories..........................................................................93-95

Limitations of the Study............................................................................................... 97

Suggestions for Further Research...........................................................................97-98

Appendix A: Memorandum (Meeting with Alternative Assessment

Appendix B: Letter of Request to the School Superintendent........................115-116

Appendix C: Letter of Request to the School Principals and

First Grade Teachers.................................................................... 117-118

Appendix D: Formal Approval of Fluman Subject Review Board................119-120

Appendix E: Invitation to Partecipate............................................................... 121-123

Appendix F: Invitation to Participate/Spanish Version...................................124-126

Appendix G: Consent Form/English Version................................................... 127-128