Multimodal Training Improves Spatial Reasoning Skills in Female College Students

Abstract

Spatial reasoning is a valuable cognitive tool which enables navigation of the body in relation to other objects in space, permits deconstruction of dimensional forms, allows reconstruction of two-dimensional representations into three-dimensional objects, and facilitates diagramming of processes or concepts. A considerable body of work has suggested that these skills are particularly important for success in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields (reviewed in Wai, Lubinski, & Benbow, Journal of Educational Psychology 101: 817-835, 2009); however, much of this data has been derived from studies with relatively narrow populations in terms of participant sex, race, academic ability, or socioeconomic condition and very few of these studies have attempted spatial reasoning training from a diversity of academic disciplines. The current study was designed to assess the influence of a week-long, academically interdisciplinary spatial reasoning Bootcamp on a small, diverse group of female participants’ spatial reasoning abilities and to determine if Participants’ subsequent performance in organic chemistry and physics coursework differed from that of a Match (non-Bootcamp participant) Control group. The data indicate that Bootcamp participants significantly improved their scores in some commonly accepted measures of spatial reasoning abilities and that Bootcamp participants’ final grades in organic chemistry, but not physics, were significantly higher than the Match Control group. The data suggest that intentional programming to improve student spatial reasoning abilities can influence short-term spatial skill performance that may translate into improved success in certain types of subsequent coursework.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Atit, K., Uttal, DH., & Stieff, M. (2020). Situating space: using a discipline-focused lens to examine spatial thinking skills Cognitive. Research: Principles and Implications, 5, 19.https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00210-z

  2. Berkowitz, M., & Stern, E. (2018). Which cognitive abilities make the difference? Predicting academic achievements in advanced STEM studies Journal of Intelligence, 6, 48.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bishop, A. (1980). Spatial abilities and mathematics education – a review Educational Studies in Mathematics. 11, 3, 257-269.

  4. Cohen, C. A., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Sources of difficulty in imagining cross sections of 3D objects. Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 179–184.

  5. Cohen, C., & Hegarty, M. (2014). Visualizing cross sections: training spatial thinking using interactive animations and virtual objects. Learning and Individual Differences. 33, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.04.002

  6. Debarnot, U., Piolino, P., Baron, J. C., & Guillot, A. (2013). Mental rotation: effects of gender, training and sleep consolidation PLoS One. 8 3 e60296 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060296

  7. Hegarty, M. (2011). The role of spatial thinking in undergraduate science education. Third Committee Meeting on Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/DBER_Hegarty_December_Paper.pdf. Retrieved from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_072586.pdf

  8. Kozhevnikov, M., & Hegarty, M. (2001). A dissociation between object manipulation spatial ability and spatial orientation ability Memory & Cognition, 29, 745-756.

  9. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316-345.

  10. Maeda, Y., Yoon, S. Y., Kim-Kang, G., & Imbrie, P. K. (2013). Psychometric properties of the revised PSVT: R for measuring first year engineering students’ spatial ability International Journal of Engineering Education, 29, 3, 763-776.

  11. Maeda, Y., and Yoon, S.Y. (2013). A meta analysis on Gender Differences in Mental Rotation Ability Measured by the Purdue Spatial Visualization Tests: Visualization of Rotations (PSVT:R). Educ Psychol Rev 25: 69-94.

  12. National Research Council. (2006). Learning to think spatially: GIS as a support system in the K–12 curriculum National Academic Press Washington, DC

  13. Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., & Andrews, G. (2017). Gender differences in spatial ability: implications for STEM education and approaches to reducing the gender gap for parents and educators. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Visual-Spatial Ability: Transforming Research into Practice (pp. 195–224). Switzerland: Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44385-0_10

  14. Tarte, L. (1990). Spatial orientation skill and mathematical problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematical Education, 21, 216-229.

  15. Uttal, D., & Cohen, C. (2012). Spatial thinking and STEM education: when, why and how? Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 57, 147-181.

  16. Uttal, D., Meadow, N., Tipton, E., Hand, L., Alden, A., Warren, & C., Newcombe, N. (2013). The malleability of spatial skills: a meta-analysis of training studies Psychological Bulletin, 139, 2, 352-402.

  17. Garderen, van, D. (2006). Spatial visualization, visual imagery, and mathematical problem solving of students with varying abilities Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 6, 496-506.

  18. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009) Spatial ability for STEM domains: aligning over fifty years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 817-835.

  19. Yoon, S.Y. (2011). Revised Purdue Spatial Visualization Test: visualization of rotations (Revised PSVT:R). [Psychometric Instrument].

  20. McFarland, J., Hussar, B., de Brey, C., Snyder, T., Wang, X., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Gebrekristos, S., Zhang, J., Rathbun, A., Barmer, A., Bullock Mann, F., and Hinz, S. (2017). The Condition of Education 2017 (NCES 2017- 144). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved [date] from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017144.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the NSF for the support of this work and for the support and guidance of Wesleyan President and NSF S-STEM Co-PI, Dr.Vivia Fowler, throughout the duration of this project. Our additional thanks to former Wesleyan President Ruth Knox for her support of this initiative.

Funding

This study was supported, in part, by National Science Foundation S-STEM 1060398 (to HB-T). Funding for this work was also provided by Wesleyan College.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Holly Boettger-Tong.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

No conflicts of interest for any author.

Ethics Approval

This study is educational research of minimal risk, with all responses coded to maintain anonymity; the study was reviewed and deemed exempt by the Wesleyan college Institutional Review Board.

Consent to Participate

All Participants in the Bootcamp signed informed consent forms for their participation; no personally identifying information is presented herein and all student responses were coded to maintain anonymity.

Consent for Publication

All authors attest their consent for publication of material contained in this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 20 KB)

Online Resource #2

Online Resource #2

Sample Items from Tests of Spatial Reasoning

The Revised Perdue Spatial Visualizations Test (PSVT:R), as revised by Yoon (2011) and referenced in Maeda and Yoon (2013) requires test-takers to view a pair of objects that represent the same shape but with some degree of rotation from one to the next. They then are presented with a new object and select from five multiple choice options the response that represents the new object if it had been rotated in a similar fashion to the original pair (see Fig. 3). There were a total of 30 items; Bootcamp participants’ scores from pre-test to post-test were gathered.

Revised Perdue Spatial Visualization Test Sample Item

Fig. 3
figure3

Sample figure from the Revised Perdue Spatial Visualization Test. In the figure above, participants were asked to choose the analogous image rotated in the same direction as the exemplar

The Santa Barbara Solids Test was administered according to the procedure described in Cohen and Hegarty 2007. Although the original measure contains 30 items, one was removed from use due to a printing error. The remaining 29 items required Bootcamp participants to view a series of varied geometric structures that were intersected by cutting planes (see Fig. 4). The structures were described as being either Simple (basic geometric solids), Joined (two solids attached together), or Embedded (one solid inserted into another one). Participants were asked to view the structure and identify, from four multiple choice options, the relevant cross section. The mean number of correct answers from the pre-test and post-test were compared.

Santa Barbara Solids Test Example

Fig. 4
figure4

Sample figure from the Santa Barbara Solids Test. In the figure above, participants were asked to view the structure and then choose the letter which correctly identifies the cross section

The Santa Barbara Perspective Taking Spatial Orientation Test, created by Kozhevnikov and Hegarty (2001), presents a configuration of seven objects located on a piece of paper (see Fig. 5 ). Participants are then asked to locate the object in relationship to a fixed point (e.g., “imagine you are standing near the stop sign facing the house; point to the traffic light”). The answer sheet for each test item showed a picture of a circle, in which the imagined station point was drawn in the center; the task was to draw in an arrow from the midpoint of the circle indicating the direction to the target object without any physical rotation of the initial stimulus or answer sheet. Although the initial scale was designed to be scored in a more complex fashion, for the purposes of the present study, participants’ mean and median degrees from the correct location was determined pre-Bootcamp and compared with post-Bootcamp answers. For this measure, lower scores indicate greater accuracy, as they show a participant who is fewer degrees away from the correct position of the arrow.

Santa Barbara Perspective Taking Spatial Orientation Test Example

Given the image below, imagine you are standing near the stop sign facing the house; point to the traffic light.

Fig. 5
figure5

Sample item from the Santa Barbara Perspective Taking Spatial Orientation test. Participants were required to orient themselves as directed by the prompt and then indicate the relation of an object in degrees (on a circle) to this location

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Applebee, D., Bennett-Day, B., Ferrari, J. et al. Multimodal Training Improves Spatial Reasoning Skills in Female College Students. J Sci Educ Technol (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09898-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Spatial reasoning training
  • STEM coursework
  • Diverse
  • Female college students