3D Models and Topographic Maps: A Student Perspective

Mia N. Velazquez and Jess A. McLaughlin, Temple University

published Mar 6, 2017 11:49am

It is well understood that students in introductory geology courses struggle with topographic map reading (Rapp, Culpepper, Kirkby, & Morin, 2007; Ishikawa & Kastens, 2005). The problems students can face range from simply misunderstanding the conventions and terminology of reading topographic maps to struggling with spatial visualization (Piburn, Leedy, & Birk, 2002). A student dedicated to studying the conventions and terminology can likely learn them without additional assistance, given enough time. Learning to mentally transform a 2D representation into a real-world 3D space is arguably much more difficult to accomplish alone. Once students understand how they should be reading a topographic map, how can one be sure that students are actually grasping the 3D nature of the map rather than applying some rules of thumb?

Learning to mentally visualize 3D concepts, such as those shown on a topographic map, can be exceptionally difficult. Small but important details can be missed, particularly in the case of a naive student. Interventions designed to address problems with reading maps and visualizing them in 3D have been implemented at nearly all age levels (Atit, 2015). Many of these interventions have been computer programs (Petty & Rule, 2008; Titus & Horsman, 2009) designed to help students visualize 3D properties such as: viewing 3D objects from new perspectives, elevation and depth, the interaction of water and landscape, and complex patterns of erosion. These programs often depict accurate 3D models, and may even provide animations of naturally occurring processes, such as the rock cycle or tectonic activity. While these programs have proven to be useful for students learning many challenging concepts, they do not necessarily address the challenge of inferring 3-dimensions from a 2-dimensional representation, such as you would find with a topographic map. Physical models, on the other hand, are inherently 3-dimensional, but cannot always match the accuracy or detail of a computer-generated model. It is also unlikely that a physical model could provide students with any animations. Despite these limitations, being able to physically manipulate the model could add a degree of real-world experience that the 3D computer model cannot provide. It is one thing to see contour lines describing the difference in height between mountains, but another thing to feel that difference.

Even in this age of technology, a physical model, rather than a computer-generated model, could aid students learning to infer 3-dimensionality from a 2-dimensional image. Research specific to geoscience is limited, though evidence of an advantage of physical models over 3D computer-generated models is found in other fields of study for which spatial visualization can be challenging, such as anatomy and architecture (Preece, Williams, Lam, & Weller, 2013; Yammine & Violato, 2016; Sun, Fukuda, Tokuhara, & Yabuki, 2013). The use of a physical model in topographic map learning could provide students with a similar boost, at least in the initial stages of understanding how the 2D topographic map relates to a 3D space.

Historically, geoscience classrooms commonly employed physical models to teach their students. Our experience is that the modern day classroom has progressed to using more advanced technology, and physical models are now rarely seen in instruction. In fact, as an undergraduate student in geoscience, Jess McLaughlin only remembers seeing a physical model used once, in a single geochemistry lecture. Given our goal is to have students understand the 3D nature of a topographic map, using a physical model could allow them to experience, and ultimately understand, the 3D nature on a smaller scale. Towards this goal, Jess has used 3D printing technology to create scale models that can be aligned with topographic maps, in an effort to help other students learn. With the help of modern technology, Jess could be providing historical teaching methods a revitalizing upgrade.

Often, the nature of what is being modeled is more complex than a physical model can convey. However, we propose that a physical model might be able to give students hands-on experience that will allow them to truly understand the 3D nature of a topographic map. We welcome anyone reading this blog to comment with their experiences teaching or learning how to mentally transform a 2D representation into 3D. What methods did you find worked best for you or your students?

References:

Atit, K. (2015). Pattern identification or 3d visualization? how best to learn topographic map comprehension. Dissertation Abstracts International, 75.

Ishikawa, T., & Kastens, K. A. (2005). Why Some Students Have Trouble with Maps and Other Spatial Representations. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(2), 184-197. doi:10.5408/1089-9995-53.2.184

Petty, M. R., & Rule, A. C. (2008). Effective Materials for Increasing Young Children's Spatial and Mapping Skills. Journal of Geoscience Education, 56(1), 5-14. doi:10.5408/1089-9995-56.1.5

Piburn, M.D., Reynolds, S.J., Leedy, D.E., McAuliffe, C.M., Birk, J.P., & Johnson, J.K. (2002, April). The Hidden Earth: Visualization of Geologic Features and their Subsurface Geometry.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Preece, D., Williams, S. B., Lam, R., & Weller, R. (2013). "Let's Get Physical": Advantages of a physical model over 3D computer models and textbooks in learning imaging anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 6(4), 216-224. doi:10.1002/ase.1345

Rapp, D. N., Culpepper, S. A., Kirkby, K., & Morin, P. (2007). Fostering Students' Comprehension of Topographic Maps. Journal of Geoscience Education, 55(1), 5-16. doi:10.5408/1089-9995-55.1.5\

Sun, L., Fukuda, T., Tokuhara, T., & Yabuki, N. (2014). Differences in spatial understanding between physical and virtual models. Frontiers of Architectural Research,3(1), 28-35. doi:10.1016/j.foar.2013.11.005

Titus, S., & Horsman, E. (2009). Characterizing and Improving Spatial Visualization Skills. Journal of Geoscience Education, 57(4), 242-254. doi:10.5408/1.3559671

Yammine, K., & Violato, C. (2015). The effectiveness of physical models in teaching anatomy: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21(4), 883-895. doi:10.1007/s10459-015-9644-7