Page 45 - i1052-5173-30-6

To evaluate whether context influences Percentage of participants who answered
frame of reference, a parallel item depicted a using an object frame of reference
geologic scene with tilted sedimentary beds
exposed on the side and top. A hiker and tree
were placed above the limestone layer in the
object and environmental frames of refer-
ence, respectively (Fig. 1B). Participants
were prompted: “Circle the object that is
above the limestone layer.”
Participant responses were categorized as
an object or an environmental reference
frame. For example, if the participant
selected the fly perpendicular to the don-
key’s back or the hiker, then they were coded Carlson-Radvansky
as the object reference frame. The demo- and Irwin (1993)
graphic survey was scored based on partici-
pants’ number of undergraduate courses, Geologic Geologic Geologic
graduate courses, degrees, and years worked. Non-geologic Non-geologic Non-geologic
An expert is a typical geology faculty mem-
ber or senior-level employee, an intermediate Expert Intermediate Novice

is equivalent to a graduate student or early- n=31 n=52 n=33
career employee, and a novice is a typical
undergraduate student. Figure 2. Percentage of participants who responded using an object frame of reference by expertise
and context. The red line represents Carlson-Radvanksy and Irwin’s 1993 object response rate.
RESULTS
The results focus on the use of an object
frame of reference for two reasons: (1) we FUTURE WORK AND LIMITATIONS REFERENCES CITED
proposed that geologic training would focus This pilot study is limited by a small Carlson-Radvansky, L.A., and Irwin, D.E., 1993,
geologists on the objects within the scene, number of survey items. However, we gath- Frames of reference in vision and language: Where
and (2) a high rate of use of an object frame ered data with a higher number of partici- is above?: Cognition, v. 46, no. 3, p. 223–244,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(93)90011-J.
of reference will show a deviation from the pants compared with the cited literature Friederici, A.D., and Levelt, W.J.M., 1990, Spatial ref-
expectations of the psychological literature. (Carlson-Radvansky and Irwin, 1993). erence in weightlessness: Perceptual factors and
Testing research question 1, our study Comparison with previous studies is lim- mental representations: Perception & Psychophys-
divided frame of reference use by geologic ited, because modern use of technologies ics, v. 47, no. 3, p. 253–266, https://doi.org/10.3758/
expertise, then by the type of scene. Our (e.g., GPS) may yield poorer frame-of-refer- BF03205000.
results show that all levels of expertise used ence thinking (Ishikawa et al., 2008). Future Groom, R., Fox-Lent, C., and Olds, S., 2015, Measur-
an object frame of reference at least 35% of work should test if the forced-choice ing Plate Motion with GPS: UNAVCO, 21 p.
the time (Fig. 2). For the geologic scenes, response format in this study primed par- Ishikawa, T., Fujiwara, H., Imai, O., and Okabe, A.,
experts and intermediates used an object ticipants and yielded a higher object-cen- 2008, Wayfinding with a GPS-based mobile navi-
frame of reference to answer the prompts tered response rate than an open-ended gation system: A comparison with maps and direct
experience: Journal of Environmental Psychology,
over 75% of the time. Novices answer ~60% task. Since frame of reference is a compo- v. 28, no. 1, p. 74–82, https://doi.org/10.1016/
of the time for both scenes. nent of spatial thinking, expanding the j.jenvp.2007.09.002.
For research question 2, we tested each study to include other science, technology, Kastens, K.A., and Ishikawa, T., 2006, Spatial think-
level of expertise using a chi-square test. No engineering, and math disciplines and a ing in the geosciences and cognitive sciences: A
significant difference was found in novice general audience would be valuable to cross-disciplinary look at the intersection of the
responses based on the context of the scene, understanding the context of these findings. two fields, in Manduca, C.A. and Mogk, D.W.,
X (1) = 0.254, ρ = 0.614. Context is impor- This study concludes that explicit frame-of- eds, Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and
2
tant at higher levels of expertise. Inter- reference training may prevent confusion Learn about the Earth: Geological Society of
mediates [X (1) = 20.422, ρ = 0.000] and between faculty and students, increasing America Special Paper 413, p. 53–76, https://doi
2
.org/ 10.1130/2006.2413(05).
experts [X (1) = 6.798, ρ = 0.009] both the rate novices move along the expert-
2
switch from an object reference frame for novice spectrum, and provides the basis for Manuscript received 25 Oct. 2019
the geologic scenes to an environmental ref- continued research to further understand its Revised manuscript received 14 Feb. 2020
erence frame for the non-geologic scenes. relationship with geology. Manuscript accepted 27 Mar. 2020

www.geosociety.org/gsatoday 45