C. Freksa, T. Barkowsky, Zoe Falomir, J. V. D. Ven
{"title":"用绳子和大头针解决几何问题","authors":"C. Freksa, T. Barkowsky, Zoe Falomir, J. V. D. Ven","doi":"10.1080/13875868.2018.1531415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Humans solve spatial and abstract problems more easily if these can be visualized and/or physically manipulated. We analyze the domain of geometric problem solving from a cognitive perspective and identify several levels of domain abstraction that interact in the problem solving process. We discuss the roles of physical manifestations of spatial configurations, their manipulation, and their perception for understanding problem solving processes. We propose an extension of the classical problem solving repertoire of constructive geometry to approach certain problems more directly than under the compass-and-straightedge paradigm. Specifically, we introduce strings and pins as helpful metaphors for a generalization of the constructive geometry approach. We present classical problems from spatial problem solving to illustrate the ‘strings and pins’ paradigm. Three case studies are discussed: strings-and-pins solutions to (i) the ellipse construction problem; (ii) the shortest path problem; and (iii) the angle trisection problem. Comparisons to formal solutions are drawn. Differences and similarities between the compass-and-straightedge paradigm and the strings-and-pins paradigm are analyzed. Features and limitations of constructive and depictive geometry as well as implications for computational approaches are discussed. The strings-and-pins domain is shown to be more general and less restrictive than the compass-and-straightedge domain.","PeriodicalId":46199,"journal":{"name":"Spatial Cognition and Computation","volume":"10 1","pages":"46 - 68"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Geometric problem solving with strings and pins\",\"authors\":\"C. Freksa, T. Barkowsky, Zoe Falomir, J. V. D. Ven\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13875868.2018.1531415\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Humans solve spatial and abstract problems more easily if these can be visualized and/or physically manipulated. We analyze the domain of geometric problem solving from a cognitive perspective and identify several levels of domain abstraction that interact in the problem solving process. We discuss the roles of physical manifestations of spatial configurations, their manipulation, and their perception for understanding problem solving processes. We propose an extension of the classical problem solving repertoire of constructive geometry to approach certain problems more directly than under the compass-and-straightedge paradigm. Specifically, we introduce strings and pins as helpful metaphors for a generalization of the constructive geometry approach. We present classical problems from spatial problem solving to illustrate the ‘strings and pins’ paradigm. Three case studies are discussed: strings-and-pins solutions to (i) the ellipse construction problem; (ii) the shortest path problem; and (iii) the angle trisection problem. Comparisons to formal solutions are drawn. Differences and similarities between the compass-and-straightedge paradigm and the strings-and-pins paradigm are analyzed. Features and limitations of constructive and depictive geometry as well as implications for computational approaches are discussed. The strings-and-pins domain is shown to be more general and less restrictive than the compass-and-straightedge domain.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46199,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Spatial Cognition and Computation\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"46 - 68\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Spatial Cognition and Computation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13875868.2018.1531415\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spatial Cognition and Computation","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13875868.2018.1531415","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT Humans solve spatial and abstract problems more easily if these can be visualized and/or physically manipulated. We analyze the domain of geometric problem solving from a cognitive perspective and identify several levels of domain abstraction that interact in the problem solving process. We discuss the roles of physical manifestations of spatial configurations, their manipulation, and their perception for understanding problem solving processes. We propose an extension of the classical problem solving repertoire of constructive geometry to approach certain problems more directly than under the compass-and-straightedge paradigm. Specifically, we introduce strings and pins as helpful metaphors for a generalization of the constructive geometry approach. We present classical problems from spatial problem solving to illustrate the ‘strings and pins’ paradigm. Three case studies are discussed: strings-and-pins solutions to (i) the ellipse construction problem; (ii) the shortest path problem; and (iii) the angle trisection problem. Comparisons to formal solutions are drawn. Differences and similarities between the compass-and-straightedge paradigm and the strings-and-pins paradigm are analyzed. Features and limitations of constructive and depictive geometry as well as implications for computational approaches are discussed. The strings-and-pins domain is shown to be more general and less restrictive than the compass-and-straightedge domain.