The World in Their Minds: A Multi-scale Approach of Children’s Representations of Geographical Space - Maps for the Future Children Education and Internet - page 233

age of 10 the child develops abilities that cope with abstract spatial knowledge and
concepts (Catling 1979 ).
It is therefore reliable that the children in this study (aged 9-12) are able to
represent their mental maps at different geographical scales and show the beginning
of higher spatial thinking ability needed to complete the three tests.
Small-scale spatial abilities are used to perform “small-scale” spatial tasks at the
figural scale of space (smaller than the body, see Fig. 19.1 ) e.g. for imagining or
mentally transforming small shapes. Large-scale spatial abilities on the other hand
are needed to perform environmental spatial tasks, such as way-finding or learning
the layout of spaces that surround the body and involve integration of the sequence of
views that change with one's movement in that environment (Hegarty et al. 2006 ).
Most research has focused on small-scale psychometric tests such as mental
rotation of shapes, finding hidden figures, or imagining the folding and unfolding of
sheets of paper. There have been relatively few attempts to assess spatial ability in
larger spaces such as the geographical space, the researched space in this study. In
their attempt to do so Quaiser-Pohl et al. ( 2004 ) found a distinction between large-
scale tasks, where the observer is part of the environment and cannot see the whole
space of interest at once and small-scale spatial tasks, where spatial relations of
objects can be seen at once. Hegarty et al. ( 2006 ) conclude on the basis of previous
extensive literature review and their own test results and analysis that there are
indications that spatial abilities at different scales of space are partially but not
totally dissociated .
... it is likely that the ability to remember the sequence of landmarks along a route does not

share common processes with small-scale spatial cognition, but the ability to infer the
configuration of an environment from route experience does. (Hegarty et al. 2006 )

Thus, it is assumable that when applying landmark strategies to draw a route
map of a familiar environment we use our large-scale spatial abilities, but when
internalizing the configuration of that environment or to apprehend larger spaces
that cannot be learnt by route experience we demand more up on our small-scale
spatial abilities ( see Fig. 19.2 ).
Siegel and White (1975) suggested that children first master landmarks then
routes and later on develop the ability to configure their environment. A sequence
that corresponds with the developmental stages suggested by Piaget and Inhelder
( 1956 )“ insofar as the use of landmarks is akin to the use of topological concepts

(e.g., knowing that the school is next to the supermarket), the use of routes is akin to
the use of projective concepts (e.g., knowing that when traveling from home to
school, one turns right at the traffic light, but on the return trip, one turns left at
the light) and the use of survey knowledge is akin to the use of Euclidean concepts
(e.g., conceptualizing locations of places and pathways by using metric distances
and angles)” (Liben 2006 ).
Hence, children drawing the route from home to school (test 1) based on landmark
strategies are expected to demand up on their large-scale spatial abilities. But
children with a more evolved spatial cognition, who are, at least in some degree,
able to conceptualize their local environment (Euclidean strategies) are likely to use

...