0 Influences On Visual Spatial Rotation Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Notre Dame of Maryland University
Graduate Studies
The dissertation of Paula C. Perry entitled Influences on Visual Spatial Rotation:
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Experiences, Age, and
Gender submitted to the School of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Instructional Leadership for Changing Populations
at Notre Dame of Maryland University has been read and approved by the Committee.
Robin Hobbs, Ed.D
Sr. Bridget Connor, Ed.D
Mark Fenster, Ph.D.
3/5/13
Copyright © Paula Christine Perry 2013
All Rights Reserved
Influences on Visual Spatial Rotation: Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Experiences, Age, and Gender
by
Paula Christine Perry
A Dissertation
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of
The Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
In Education
2013
UMI Number: 3557721
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3557721
Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
ABSTRACT
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education
curriculum is designed to strengthen students’ science and math achievement through
project based learning activities. As part of a STEM initiative, SeaPerch was developed
at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. SeaPerch is an innovative underwater robotics
program that instructs students in how to build an underwater Remotely Operated Vehicle
(ROV) following a STEM curriculum, including spatial thinking and rotation ability.
This research study investigated if the students’ SeaPerch program and its spatial
experience and training gave the opportunity to develop strategies not only in
manipulating three dimensional objects but in strengthening mathematical ability (e.g.
spatial thinking) in elementary, middle, and high school students with specific focus on
gender and age.
This research study sample consisted of two groups of students: one that
participated in the after-school SeaPerch program and the other that did not participate in
the after-school SeaPerch program for the 2011-2012 school year. Both groups
comprised students in similar grade levels and the MRT preassessment scores.
To measure students’ spatial rotation, the researcher used the Vandenberg and
Kuse Mental Rotation Test (MRT). An independent samples t test was conducted to
determine the effect of the SeaPerch program on MRT scores. The SeaPerch students (M
= 1.35, SD = 2.21) scored significantly higher gains than the Non-SeaPerch students (M =
-.03, SD = 1.72), t (737) = 8.27, p = <.001. The effect size as measured by Cohen’s d =
.697, indicated a medium practical significance. At each school level, MRT post
assessment scores for students in the SeaPerch program increased significantly more than
scores for students in the non-SeaPerch program.

DEDICATION
Be the hero of your own story.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Walter Eliot stated that perseverance is not a long race: it is many short races, one
after another. Reflecting on this journey, at each checkpoint, I have been blessed to have
crossed the paths of a few memorable people that influenced my life. To Sr. Sharon Slear
and Dr. Margaret Steinhagen, I will always remember the day of my oral comprehensive
exam and the deep scholarly conversation that we shared. That defining moment allowed
me to gain the clarity that I never had before.
To my committee members, you have modeled the characteristics and dedication
of a master teacher. Sr. Bridget Connor, I appreciated your conceptual keen eye and your
continued enthusiasm; Dr. Mark Fenster, you arrived to NDMU unknowingly as my
statistical knight and trained me to defeat the world of ANCOVA dragons. With sincere
gratitude, a heartfelt thanks to Dr. Robin Hobbs whose words of encouragement,
guidance throughout the years, and careful reading of my cursed documents will never be
forgotten. You are my role model.
To Dr. Angela Moran, Dr. Maureen McMahon, STEM 2013, SRHS Math
Department, SeaPerch instructional leaders for providing me with this incredible research
opportunity. To Dr. Heidi Higgins and Dr. Michael Peters for their guidance involving
the Mental Rotation Test (MRT). To the memorable educators I have met along the way,
Sr. Jane, Maisha, Lisa, Jeff, Joelle, Debbie, and Mary.
The acknowledgement would not be complete without my family. Your
selflessness over the past few years has been more than I deserve. Thank you for
allowing me to find the peace and significance through this journey. The only thing that
stands between a person and what they want in life is the will to try it and the faith to
believe it possible. To my NDMU family, thank you for believing in me.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter I: INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER ................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................... 3

Purpose of the Research .......................................................................................... 6
Extent of Problem and Need .................................................................................. 7
Spatial Experience Through Age ................................................................ 7
Spatial Experience: Gender Differences ..................................................... 9
Spatial Experience Through Nature vs. Nurture ....................................... 10
Research Questions ............................................................................................... 11
Limitations of the Study........................................................................................ 12
Definition of Terms .............................................................................................. 13
Chapter II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ......................................................... 15
Experience and Knowledge ................................................................................. 15

Importance of Spatial Abilities ............................................................................ 17
Experience: Spatial Abilities in Knowledge ........................................................ 18
Experience: Spatial Abilities in Science, Technology, Engineering,
Mathematics .............................................................................................. 21
Experience: Spatial Abilities in the SeaPerch Program ........................................ 22
Age and Gender Differences in Spatial Abilities:
Mathematics Achievement ....................................................................... 22
Age and Gender Differences in Spatial Abilities: Biological ............................. 25
Age and Gender Differences in Spatial Abilities: Experimental ......................... 27
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................... 28
vii
Chapter III: RESEARCH METHOD .......................................................................... 30
Problem ................................................................................................................ 31
Participants ........................................................................................................... 31
Mental Rotation Test............................................................................................. 32
Procedures ............................................................................................................ 33
Questions .............................................................................................................. 35
Overview/Summary of the Research ................................................................... 37
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ...................................................... 38
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 38
Descriptive Statistics for Students ........................................................................ 39
Descriptive Statistics for Mental Rotation Test Preassessment and
Postassessment Scores by SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch Students ........... 40
Results of Research Question 1:
MRT Scores for SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch Students .......................... 42
MRT Preassessment and Postassessment Scores for
SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch Students ..................................................... 44
Descriptive Statistics for Mental Rotation Test Preassessment and
Postassessment Scores by SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch
Students by Age ...................................................................................... 45
SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch Students by Age ........................................ 47
SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch Students by Age ........................................ 51
viii
Descriptive Statistics for Mental Rotation Test Preassessment
and Postassessment Scores by SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch
Students by Gender ................................................................................. 56
SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch Students by Gender ................................... 58
SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch Students by Gender ................................... 59
Descriptive Statistics for Mental Rotation Test Preassessment
and Postassessment Scores by SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch
Students by Age and Gender .................................................................... 63
SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch Students by Age and Gender ..................... 77
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 78
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 80
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 80
Summary and Interpretation of the Findings ....................................................... 81
MRT Results ............................................................................................ 81
Influence of Age on MRT scores ............................................................. 82
Influence of Gender on MRT scores ........................................................ 83
Influence of Age and Gender on MRT scores ......................................... 84
Suggestions for Further Research ........................................................................ 85
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 87
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 89
ix
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 112
Appendix A: Peters (1995) Mental Rotation Test ............................................. 112

Appendix B: Anne Arundel County Public Schools Permission ....................... 114
Appendix C: Consent Letter, Research Consent Form ...................................... 115
Appendix D: Sample Items and Directions from the Mental Rotation Task ..... 121
Appendix E: Instructional Script ....................................................................... 122
x
LIST OF TABLES
1. Student Participant Demographics (n=739) ................................................................. 39

2. Descriptive Statistics for Mental Rotation Test
Preassessment and Postassessment Scores by Group .......................................... 41
3. Paired Samples t Test for Mental Rotation Test
Preassessment and Postassessment for SeaPerch Students .................................. 43
Preassessment and Postassessment for Non-SeaPerch Students ......................... 43
5. Independent Samples t Test for Preassessment for SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch
Students ................................................................................................................ 44
6. Independent Samples t Test for Postassessment for SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch
Students ................................................................................................................ 45
Preassessment and Postassessment Scores by Age .............................................. 46
Preassessment and Postassessment for Elementary SeaPerch Students .............. 47
Preassessment and Postassessment for Middle SeaPerch Students ..................... 48
Preassessment and Postassessment for High SeaPerch Students ......................... 49
Preassessment and Postassessment for Elementary Non-SeaPerch Students ...... 50
Preassessment and Postassessment for Middle Non-SeaPerch Students ............. 50
Preassessment and Postassessment for High Non-SeaPerch Students ................ 51
14. Independent Samples t Test for Mental Rotation Test
Preassessment for SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch
Elementary School Students ................................................................................ 52
xi
Middle School Students ....................................................................................... 53
High School Students ........................................................................................... 54
Postassessment for SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch
Elementary School Students ................................................................................ 55
Postassessment for SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch
Middle School Students ....................................................................................... 55
High School Students ........................................................................................... 56
Preassessment and Postassessment Scores by Gender ......................................... 57
Preassessment and Postassessment for SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch
Students by Gender .............................................................................................. 58
Preassessment and Postassessment for Non-SeaPerch
Preassessment for SeaPerch
Preassessment for Non-SeaPerch

xii
Postassessment for SeaPerch
Postassessment for Non-SeaPerch
Preassessment and Postassessment Scores by Age and Gender .......................... 64
28. ANOVA for Mental Rotation Test
Mean Scores for SeaPerch Students by Age and Gender .................................... 78
xiii
List of Figures
1. Elementary SeaPerch Preassessment Histogram ......................................................... 65

2. Elementary Non-SeaPerch Preassessment Histogram ................................................. 66
3. Elementary SeaPerch Mean Difference Histogram ..................................................... 67
4. Elementary Non-SeaPerch Mean Difference Histogram ............................................. 68
5. Middle SeaPerch Preassessment Histogram ................................................................ 69
6. Middle Non-SeaPerch Preassessment Histogram ........................................................ 70
7. Middle SeaPerch Mean Difference Histogram ............................................................ 71
8. Middle Non-SeaPerch Mean Difference Histogram .................................................... 72
9. High School SeaPerch Preassessment Histogram ........................................................ 73
10. High School Non-SeaPerch Preassessment Histogram ............................................. 74
11. High School SeaPerch Mean Difference Histogram ................................................. 75
12. High School Non-SeaPerch Mean Difference Histogram ......................................... 76
xiv
Chapter I
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER
The debate over how humans acquire knowledge has been a continuing issue in
education from ancient times to the present. John Locke at the beginning of the modern
period and Lev Vygotsky in the early 20th century believed that the “brain remains plastic
into very old age” (Vygotsky, 1964), changing in response to learning and environmental
events (Halpern, 2007; Newcombe, 2003; Haig, 2002; Gopnik, 2000; Vygotsky, 1964;
Locke, 1960). Similarly, people are born with the innate ability to count and discern
quantities, but how they develop those abilities depends on their environment and
learning experiences (Halpern, 2007).
Locke’s idea of tabula rasa views the mind as a blank slate with the capacity to
learn but with no innate ideas. All learning for Locke began with sense experience.
Ideas are formed by the mind reflecting and acting upon sense experience. He stated that
through experiencing the world, one formed ideas which are the ultimate source of all our
concepts and knowledge (Ayers, 1999). Locke critiqued the philosophy of innate ideas
and built a theory of the mind and knowledge that gave priority to the senses and
experiences. He saw mental differences among human beings as mainly due to
differences in environmental experiences, rather than inherited or innate qualities. His
ultimate suggestion was that all humans are born with the building blocks to become who
they are. In turn, as humans go through life and experience what it has to offer, they
1
2
form the necessary tools to survive and become individuals, as well as develop their
ability to learn (Pinker, 2002).
Vygotsky argued that biological and maturational aspects of development as well
as aspects of the physical, social, and cultural environment had to be considered to make
sense of development; he did not regard the infant as a blank slate. In the process of
development, the child not only masters the items of cultural experience, but the habits
and forms of cultural behavior [the cultural methods of reasoning] (Hogan & Tudge,
1999). Vygotsky placed more emphasis on culture affecting and shaping cognitive
development. He believed cognitive functions, even those carried out alone, were
affected by the beliefs, values, and tools of intellectual adaptation of the culture in which
a person develops, and therefore are socioculturally determined. The tools of intellectual
adaptation varied from culture to culture (Mcleod, 2007). Vygotsky stated that those
maturational changes in the child determined his experiences in the social environment.
From the development point of view, the environment becomes entirely different the
minute the child moves from one age level to another (Vygotsky, 1964).
Abilities are developed in supportive environments as experience alters brain
structures and functioning. A wide range of sociocultural forces contribute to differences
in mathematics achievement and ability including the influences of family, neighborhood,
peers, and school; training and experience; gender, and cultural practices (Halpern, 2007;
Yazici & Ertekin, 2010).

3
Statement of the Problem
Identifying and focusing on fundamental elements that affect the development of
spatial ability such as experience, age, and gender are important in education because
they can provide insight for new methods that seek to improve mathematics achievement.
Research in the field of mathematics education indicates that several factors such as
biological and social roles influence mathematics ability (Assel, Landry, Swank, Smith &
Steelman, 2003; Casey, Nuttall, Pezaris, Harwood & Benhow, 1994; Fennema &
Sherman, 1977; Halpern, 2000; Voyer & Sullivan, 2003). For example, gender is
correlated with mathematics achievement, with males consistently out-performing
females in some areas (Hyde & Mertz, 2009).
Spatial sense plays an essential role in the development of children’s
mathematical abilities as it contributes to their understanding of quantities and
relationships between numbers (Van Ness, 2011). Mental rotation, problem-solving
experiences, and current levels of spatial reasoning support mathematical learning and
understanding (Van Ness & De Lang, 2007). Spatial abilities, such as mental rotation
tasks, appear essential for developing mathematical abilities such as ordering, comparing,
generalizing and classifying (NCTM, 2011; Papic & Mulligan, 2005; Waters, 2004). For
decades, spatial ability has surfaced as a salient characteristic of young adolescents who
go on to develop expertise in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
(Lubinski, 2010; Scali, Brownlow & Hicks, 2000; Voyer, Nolan & Voyer, 2000; Lawton,
2000). STEM programs such as SeaPerch apply spatial thinking to mathematical
problems when students design and build an underwater robotic perch. In the SeaPerch
4
program, students use spatial thinking skills and visualization of the electrical circuits,
mathematics calculations of speed, and velocity (Mastascusa, Snyder & Hoyt, 2011).
Students are influenced by real world experiences and flourish in an environment
enriched with meaningful activities. This process can be assisted by providing learning
environments that involve emotional, relevant, and contextual learning (Jensen, 2008).
Some researchers have found positive correlations between achievement in mathematics
and experience with spatial-type activities, such as certain sports, games, and toys
(Quaiser-Pohl & Lehmann, 2002; Voyer, Nolan & Voyer, 2000).
Mental rotation abilities may be modulated by learning, suggesting that nurture
rather than nature may be the key and that experience is the necessary biological catalyst
to develop visual-spatial ability (Kosick, O’Leary, Moser, Andreasen & Nopoulos, 2009).
Spatial abilities are first developed in the home environment especially during play
experiences that may prove beneficial to developing these skills before formal schooling
begins (Clements, 1999). Block play has been found to contribute to the development of
spatial ability skills in young children (Jones, 2010). Play can sculpt the brain and build
denser webs of neural connections by exercising brain cells. The nerve cells in the brain
thicken and grow as children learn (Purves, 2007). Furthermore, such activities may
improve young children's spatial abilities and mathematics experience and lead to a
greater understanding of the necessary experiences that parents and schools should be
providing children.
The research suggests that attaining a better understanding of how children at
various ages perform on mental rotation tasks and the possible variables that influence
this performance may serve as the basis for invention to help improve students’ mental
5
rotation abilities and, possibly, their performance in mathematics (Sowder, 2007;
Grootenboer & Hemmings 2007). Older children have the ability to make connections
because they can make a complete mental picture of the space and materials. It is
postulated that they develop the ability to form mental pictures through hands-on
practice, and by repeated experiences with exploring the parts and attributes of shapes
that come from children’s natural inquisitiveness, not from passive looking (Piaget &
Inhelder, 1967; Waber, Carlson & Mann, 1982). A large amount of evidence
(Baenninger & Newcombe, 1989; Becker, 1981; Caldera, Culp, O’Brien, Truglio,
Alvarez & Huston, 1999; Casey et al., 1994; Levine et al., 1999; Serbin, Zelkowitz,
Doyle & Gold, 1990; Tracey, 1990) supports the theory that the school environment and
the materials in that environment influence the development of children’s spatial abilities.
One of the areas affected by gender is spatial thinking and a subcomponent of this
mathematics ability is mental rotation (Assel, Landry, Swank, Smith & Steelman, 2003;
Casey, Nuttall, Pezaris, Harwood & Benhow, 1994; Fennema & Sherman, 1977; Halpern,
2000; Voyer & Sullivan, 2003). Likewise, in Gardner’s (2006) multiple intelligences,
spatial visualization and mental rotation are skills which involve the ability to visualize
and retain a mental image as it is rotated in space. There is strong evidence that males
outperform females on mental rotation tasks across a range of groups (Casey, Colon &
Goris 1992; Birenbaum, Kelly & Levi-Keren, 1994; Ceci, Williams & Barnett, 2009).
Experience with these activities may reduce the magnitude of gender differences
and may result in stronger spatial abilities and mathematics achievement (Higgins, 2006).
One approach to helping all youth develop visual-spatial abilities may be to expand their
6
successful learning experiences at an early age and develop gender-neutral related
educational and occupational competencies and interests.
Purpose of this Research
Traditionally, tests of spatial abilities, and particularly mental rotation tasks, have
focused on the parietal lobe (Heil & Jansen-Osmann, 2008). Theories suggest that the
right hemisphere may be dominant for mental rotation; however, left parietal involvement
may increase with rotation difficulty. Researchers also have shown that home and social
factors can have an influence on academic achievement (Hampden-Thompson, 2012) and
that students come to school facing problems that cannot be fixed by changes in
instruction.
Despite increased interest in factors associated with mathematics achievement and
spatial abilities, there has been limited research analyzing mental rotation ability and
experience with spatial-type activities, with the independent variables of both age and
gender.
This researcher examined the SeaPerch’s program influence on visual-spatial
ability in elementary, middle, and high school students. This research also evaluated
whether the SeaPerch experience altered student performance on the Mental Rotation
Test (MRT) with specific focus on age and gender.
SeaPerch is an innovative underwater robotics program that teaches students how
to build an underwater Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) that follows a curriculum of
basic science, technology, engineering, and mathematics concepts, including spatial
thinking and mental rotation ability (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003).

7
Extent of Problem and Need
Spatial Experience through Age
Writings of Piaget have guided the developmental aspect of spatial cognition. He
suggested that children’s spatial ability does not reach an adult level before age 12
(Piaget & Inhelder, 1967). On the other hand, Huttenlocher and Newcombe (2000)
suggest that spatial understanding develops earlier than proposed in Piaget’s work. They
believe that children complete their mental development in spatial learning by the time
they are 9 or 10 provided that they are encouraged to use/play with spatial activities like
maps and tools (Huttenlocher & Newcombe, 2000).
Meta-analysis results on spatial ability (Linn and Petersen, 1985; Voyer, 1995)
show that there is a significant male advantage on mental rotation by the age of 10. Linn
and Petersen (1985) point out that from age 5 boys get better scores than girls, and the
difference becomes statistically different at age 11 (Yilmaz, 2009).
One argument for the differences in elementary (ages 6 to 11 years old), middle
(ages 12 to 14 years old), and high school (ages 15 to 18 years old) students’ mental
rotation ability was that experience with spatial activity drove these differences.
However, it is possible self-selection of activities based on spatial abilities during
childhood or early adolescence might lead to increased spatial ability experience on the
part of some children and not others (Newcombe & Dubas, 1992).
As early as age 3, children prefer to play with toys deemed appropriate for their
own gender (Green, Bigler & Catherwood, 2004). Other researchers, such as Jacklin,
Maccoby, and Dick (1973) found gender differences in toy preferences exist in 1-year-
old children. As children, young girls are more likely to involve themselves in female
8
sex-typed activities such as drawing, cooking and playing with dolls. Young boys are
more likely to engage in male sex-typed activities that provide three-dimensional
experience. These activities include sports such as blocks, LEGOS, basketball, football,
soccer, archery, geometry and drafting (Newcombe, Bandura & Taylor, 1983).
Activities, culturally accepted as masculine in nature, require more practice of spatial
abilities.
Males as a group typically outperform females on measures of mental rotation, a
difference that is believed to emerge at adolescence (Waber, Carlson & Mann, 1982).
Parietal lobe activity has been reported to be more symmetrically organized in women
than in men, where activity is biased to the right hemisphere (Kosick et. al., 2009).
Another argument was biologically based, suggesting that there was either a
critical period of development that led to differential lateralization of the brain or
differential activation of the brain by circulating hormones. A fundamental gender
difference in hemispheric lateralization of special cognition exists long before puberty
(Hahn, Jansen & Heil, 2009). Performance on mental rotation tasks has been associated
with right parietal activation levels, both during task performance and prior to
performance during baseline recordings (Roberts & Bell, 2010). This biologically based
perspective described spatial gender differences as a result of human-evolution. Males
were hunters and therefore, they excelled in tasks that used spatial abilities. Females
were gatherers and they excelled in tasks related to foraging, such as peripheral
perception. This allowed females to have a greater recall of objects in arrays (Turos &
Ervin, 2000). Gender stereotyped space-related activities predicted visuospatial

9
performance; females improved spatial cognition when engaged in male-associated
space-related activities (Hahn, Jansen & Heil, 2009).
Spatial Experience: Gender Differences
While this view is controversial, as a variety of social explanations also have been
offered (Turos & Ervin, 2000), there is some evidence to support the biologically based
explanation. Men showed an increase in right hemispheric activation while processing
spatial information. Conversely, females did not show an increase in right hemisphere
activation (Turos & Ervin, 2000). Males performed higher-order mathematics skills
better than females, because males’ hormones tend to ‘sculpt’ different brain physiology
over time, and males therefore became better at applying their knowledge to extension
problems (Benbow, 1988; Geary, 1994). Research revealed that females used concrete
manipulatives to calculate solutions to basic mathematics problems, whereas males used
mental representations of numbers and retrieval strategies for solving these problems
(Toptas, Celik & Keraca, 2012; Clements, 1999). Particularly, males usually performed
better on mental rotation tasks than did females (Hegarty, 1999).
Feingold (1988) analyzed changes in the effect of the gender difference in
performance on spatial relations with 8th to 12th grade students over a period of 40 years.
His instrument, the Differential Aptitude Test, resulted in a decreased Cohen’s d from .37
to .15 concluding that the gender differences in spatial abilities are disappearing. Masters
and Sanders (1993) mirrored Feingold’s study and included the Vandenberg and Kuse
Mental Rotation Task instrument. They chose this instrument because the effect size of
the gender difference has been shown in past studies to be quite large. The population of
interest was high school senior males and females. The effect size of the gender
10
difference was .90, a large effect size. While the finding of a large difference is evident,
it does not address the question of whether the magnitude of the gender difference is
decreasing with time. Masters and Sanders believed that Feingold’s study is based on the
fact that the instruments are measuring different spatial processes. Therefore a decrease
in size effect of the gender difference on space relations tests would not predict a similar
change on the MRT (Masters & Sanders, 1993).
Spatial Experience through Nature vs. Nurture
Although research has shown different brain activations for males and females,
there still is wonder as to what extent nature and nurture are involved. The type of
environment and the activities that are suggested for each gender also influenced the
development of spatial abilities (Turos & Ervin, 2000). The belief was that the study of
gender differences provided important insight into the relative contributions of biology,
instruction, and experience in the acquisition of knowledge and skill.
Some studies have focused on spatial ability differences at various age levels
(Battista, 1990; Salthouse, Babcock, Mitchell, Palmon & Skovronek, 1990) or the ages at
which different aspects of spatial ability seem most apparent (Salthouse & Mitchell,
1990; Tartre, 1990). Age-related differences are often a result of differences in
processing speed, knowledge, and experience (Salthouse, 1987). Spatial ability gender
differences favoring males do exist at prepubertal ages (Venderhus & Krekling, 1996)
specifically at 7 or 8 years of age (Glasmer & Turner, 1995) and remain constant to age
18 (Johnson & Meade, 1987).
A body of research has found that spatial skills also served as mediators of
gender-based mathematics differences (Casey, Nuttall & Pezaris, 2001; Anglin, Pirson &
11
Langer, 2008). Nevertheless, this explanation has been dismissed by a number of
researchers who have argued from a purely socialization perspective to account for any
advantage for males (Franke & Levi, 1998). Females are likely to perform as well as
males when they are encouraged to succeed using the right educational tools and have
visible female role models (Else-Quest, Hyde & Linn, 2010). Recently, research shows
that females’ poorer spatial-mechanical skills may contribute to a lack of success in areas
in which males do well (Newcombe, 2010; James, 2007; Casey, Nuttall &, Pezaris,
2001). Whether their problems with spatial rotation contribute to the difficulties that
females have in mathematics, females believe that they do, and that belief affects their
performance in mathematics (Ceci, Williams & Barnett, 2009).
Research Questions
Given the background of the identified problem and the need, this researcher
posed the following questions:
1. Do Mental Rotation Test scores increase for students participating and not
participating in the SeaPerch program as measured by paired samples t test?
2. Are the Mental Rotation Test preassessment and postassessment gain scores
different between students who participate in the SeaPerch program and
students who do not participate in the SeaPerch program as measured by an
independent samples t test?
3. Are the gain scores different for age between Mental Rotation Test scores for
students participating and not participating in the SeaPerch program, as
measured by a paired samples t test?

12
different for age between students who participate or who do not participate in
the SeaPerch program, as measured as measured by an independent samples t
test?
5. Are the Mental Rotation Test gain scores different for gender between
students who participate or who do not participate in the SeaPerch program, as
different for gender between students who participate or who do not
participate in the SeaPerch program, as measured by an independent samples t
test?
7. Is there an interaction effect between age and gender of students who
participate in the SeaPerch program or do not participate in the SeaPerch
program and their Mental Rotation Test scores, as measured by ANCOVA?
The results of the research questions would provide statistical data as this
researcher sought to determine if spatial experience training through the SeaPerch
program helped students develop strategies not only in manipulating three dimensional
objects but in strengthening mathematical ability as measured by t tests of significance,
and an analysis of covariance test.
Limitations of the Study
This research study focused on the mental rotation ability of students who did or
did not participate in the SeaPerch program. Because a purposive sampling procedure
was used for Non-SeaPerch students, the control group, results may not be generalizable
13
to other students at the same grade level. Further, the control group was constrained by
the availability of Non-SeaPerch students and by parent/guardians’ willingness to
consent. Like number of participants and gender balance in the Non-SeaPerch students
may have disclosed different results on the MRT assessment. Another limitation was the
age and gender at each school level in the SeaPerch program. Each SeaPerch group was
allotted 20 volunteering participants.
Definition of Terms
Age: Represents three school level categories, elementary (6-11 years old), middle (12-
14 years old) and high (15-18 years old).
Experience: Knowledge or practical wisdom gained from what one has observed,
encountered, or undergone (Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 2010).
Mental rotation: A subcategory of spatial abilities that includes the process of mentally
rotating a two- or three-dimensional figure or object quickly and accurately (Linn &
Petersen, 1985).
Spatial ability: The ability to imagine, perceive, manipulate, reorganize, and retrieve
visual images of objects or forms (Carroll, 1993). The three sub factors of this ability
include spatial visualization, spatial perception, and mental rotation (Linn & Petersen,
1985).
Spatial experience: Level of experience a participant has had with activities that have
been identified as spatial (Newcombe, 2010).
SeaPerch: The Sea Perch is a simple, remotely operated underwater vehicle, or ROV,
made from PVC pipe and other inexpensive, easily available materials (Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 2003).

14
SeaPerch program: SeaPerch is an innovative underwater robotics program that equips
teachers and students with the resources they need to build an underwater Remotely
Operated Vehicle (ROV) in an in-school setting. Students build the ROV from a kit
comprising low-cost, easily accessible parts, following a curriculum that teaches basic
engineering and science concepts with a marine engineering theme. The SeaPerch
program provides students with the opportunity to learn about robotics, engineering,
science, and mathematics (STEM) while building an underwater ROV as part of a science
and engineering technology curriculum. Throughout the project, students learn
engineering concepts, problem solving, teamwork, spatial and technical applications
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003).
This study explored the connection among these areas by analyzing: (a) what
correlations existed, if any, between experience and mental rotation abilities, (b) how
spatial abilities and mathematics connect, (c) what factors influenced spatial abilities, and
(d) what role age and gender played in spatial ability and visual rotation development.
Chapter II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter provides a review of current findings in the areas of experience and
knowledge; importance of spatial abilities with regard to age and gender, the influence of
the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), SeaPerch program;
and gender differences in spatial abilities including mathematics achievement, societal
expectations, biological, and academic achievement.
Experience and Knowledge
Recent neuroscience studies suggest that intelligence is related to how well
information travels throughout the brain (Haier, Jung, Yeo, Head & Alkire, 2007). At the
same time, while much of the brain’s basic equipment is in place at birth and its neural
connections continue to form during the first few years of life, a great deal of plasticity
exists in its cognitive development and how it records experience as one learns. This idea
of cognitive development molding through experiences led to the dubbing of John
Locke’s tabula rasa as the “plastic slate” (Pinker, 2002).
When analyzing what educators may need to know most about the brain,
researchers search for understanding about where higher cognitive processing occurs.
The region of greatest interest is known as the cerebral cortex (Purves, 2007). When
teachers educate students, they are essentially changing those nerve cells, their structures
and the chemistry in students’ cerebral cortices (Purves, 2007). Differential learning
15
16
provides a rich classroom environment that addresses how the brain develops and how
students learn (Jensen, 2008).
Studies have found that meaningful, stimulating materials cause students to sprout
new dendrites (Willis, 2006; D’Arcangelo, 2006). Dendrites, the thin branch-like
extensions of a neuron cell, receive many inputs from other neurons that transmit
information through contact points called synapses. Much attention has been focused on
the role that synapses play in learning (Lynch, 1998). They change in ways that make it
easier for related neurons to pass information (Johnston, 2005). Therefore new dendrites
allow the ability to transfer and provide the connections to newly learned materials. Most
learning is not the construction of new schema, but rather connecting with existing
schema. Long-term memory functions as a connection machine, needing to tie new
experiences and learning to experiences and schemata the student already possesses
(Ellis, 1993).
Those connections and contexts are vital to effectively acquiring new information.
They shape how individuals perceive everything from language to experience. The lack
of adequate schemata, experiences, and contexts for learning actually complicates
learning, because students’ minds may forget information for which they cannot find a
connection. The mind needs a connection to learn or perceive, and discards information
that does not fit (Diamond & Scheibel, 1985).
Educators often think that when students have difficulty learning, they have given
the students too much to learn, or that the material was too hard, or that students do not
possess the background knowledge to understand the passage. Experience is the key to
17
meaningful learning, not someone else’s experience abstracted and condensed into
textbook form, but one’s own direct experience (Ellis & Fouts, 1993).
During the course of these experiences stored in long-term memory, the brain looks for
patterns, makes connections, and creates generalizations (Jackson, 2006). The idea is a
simple one: rather than store all the individual details of a memory, the mind uses a
generalized framework with slots or hooks for details from the specific instance (Hegarty
& Kozhevnikov, 1999).
Importance of Spatial Abilities
The parietal lobe contains the primary sensory cortex which controls sensation.
Areas within the parietal lobe on the non-dominant side of the brain control spatial
orientation (Purves, 2007). Increased parietal cortex activation in 3D mental rotation
tasks may be due to the higher cognitive demand the task requires (Levin, Mohamed &
Platek, 2005). Choi and Silverman’s (2000) hypothesized that males may be innately
programmed to explore larger areas than females from an early point in ontogeny, which
may represent a critical period in which sex differences in spatial strategies develop in
response to the differential requirements for navigating larger vs. smaller spaces.
Specifically, the ability to rotate objects or images mentally is said to play a significant
role in route learning, which requires an individual to navigate and rotate environmental
characteristics mentally while continuously updating spatial information (Choi &
Silverman, 2000).
Koscik (2009) investigated correlations between total cerebral measures (tissue
volume and surface area) and percent correct on a MRT to determine if the assumption
that mental rotation performance is specifically related to parietal lobe structure as

18
opposed to a more global relationship to brain structure. As cited in Levin (2005), males
showed right lateralized activation in the more difficult spatial tasks and bilateral
activation across all spatial tasks, whereas females showed less activation in both levels
of the task. Males and females appear to implement different cognitive strategies,
originating in different neural substrates when solving spatial cognitive tasks. Activation
in the inferior parietal lobes was the most common finding and suggests that this area
holds specific importance for male spatial cognition (Purves, 2007).
In this regard, however, just as females appear to have more brain space devoted to
language functions, it also appears that males have more neocortical space devoted to
spatial-perceptual and related expressive functions (Joseph, 2000). Kosack’s (2009) data
did reveal that a negative correlation between proportional grey matter and performance
was present only in the women and a positive correlation between surface area and
mental rotation test performance was seen only in the men. Therefore, increased cerebral
blood flow in the right hemisphere of males is correlated with increased performance in
spatial tasks (Levin, Mohamed, Platek, 2005). It is likely that the inferior parietal lobe
which allows for mental representation of self is also responsible for self-relation to
objects in space that can then be mentally manipulated (Levin, 2005).
Experience: Spatial Abilities in Knowledge
Theorists Sheila and Robert Cohen (1985) focused on an individual’s knowledge
of the spatial environment as an ability to manipulate an object spatially and how that
knowledge is influenced by the amount of experience with activities of various types.
The implication of this theory on current research suggests that one’s potential mental
rotation ability can be strengthened through interactions with particular activities over a
19
period of time. Throughout their development, males are given numerous opportunities
to practice their visual-spatial skills (e.g. sports, toys, mathematics classes, video games),
while females are less likely to do the same because they view such activities as males-
only (Tracey, 1987). In Tracey’s research study, toys were divided into several
categories, including two-dimensional toys such as puzzles and stickers, three-
dimensional toys such as LEGOs and Tinker Toys, and proportional arrangement toys
such as tea sets and cars or trucks. It was determined that children who played with toys
in the three-dimensional category had higher mathematics scores, regardless of whether
they were male or female and also regardless of whether they possessed a large number
of stereotypically masculine or feminine traits. It has been suggested that three-
dimensional toys promote the development of spatial abilities, and also that the majority
of three-dimensional toys are aimed at boys.
In children, mental rotation can be trained by extensive repetition of the task, but
the improvement seems to rely on the retrieval of previously presented stimuli
(Wiedenbauer, Schmid & Jansen-Osmann, 2007). The main purpose of Wiedenbauer’s
experiments was to investigate whether mental rotation can be trained by a manual
rotation task in a virtual environment. The participants executed three test sessions of
mental rotation. Before the second session, the practice group participated in four
training sessions of mental rotation. Reaction times decreased from one training session
to the next. The practice group benefited from the training for learned objects, but only
when these objects were presented in exactly the same orientation as during training. The
data therefore suggest that the mental rotation process is not executed more rapidly after
training but is replaced by memory retrieval. Overall, practicing mental rotation does
20
have a training effect, even if this effect does not seem to be due to a faster execution of
the mental rotation process (Wiedenbauer et al., 2007). However, it cannot be inferred
that the mental rotation process itself is not trainable.
Wolfgang, Stannard, and Jones’ (2003) longitudinal study in which preschool
children were rated on the complexity of their block play (which has a high level of
spatial and mental rotation) and then were followed into their high school years found
(controlling for IQ and gender) positive relationships with seventh-grade mathematical
test scores and high school measures of math grades, number of math courses, and
number of honors courses. The researchers speculated that the reasons no relationships
were found with third- and fifth-grade test scores may be because of the “minimum skill
and memorization” tests used in those earlier grades, and that when children developed
formal operational thought processes by seventh grade, these might build on their early
play experiences.
Young children’s level of play with the LEGO toy has been found to correlate
with their later achievement in school mathematics (Wolfgang, Stannard & Jones, 2003).
LEGO’s unique interlocking combinations system allows children to learn about
construction, patterning, fine-motor development and design tactically. LEGO
construction teaches how to think, play, and build in three dimensions, a precursor to
physics. Children of all ages also hone creativity, problem-solving, and teamwork
through LEGO play. Research results reported by Wolfgang et al. (2003) indicated that
higher levels of performance with LEGO building correlated to high standardized
mathematics test scores at the seventh-grade level. Chan (2007) studied the spatial ability in
primary (grades 3 to 6) and secondary (grades 7 to 12) students through a multidimensional
aptitude battery. The spatial test involved testing students’ mental rotation ability in a two-‐
21
dimensional space and matching the figure to a like shape. The researcher concluded that
secondary students scored significantly higher than primary students on the spatial test
(Jackson, 2006). Chan also found that secondary boys reported greater involvement in spatial
orientation activities than did boys in primary schools (Chan, 2007).
Experience: Spatial Abilities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
It is predicted that by the end of the decade, Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) employment opportunities in this country will increase by
nearly 50% (National Science Foundation, 2002). It is reported that females have few
role models or mentors in the STEM sector because of existing gender segregation in the
labor market (Crisp, Nora & Taggart, 2009). Researchers agree that individuals who go
on to achieve educational and occupational credentials in STEM tend to be distinguished
by salient levels of spatial ability, relative to verbal ability, during early adolescence.
Indeed, their level of mathematical and spatial reasoning ability is markedly above the
norm of their age-matched peers (Gohm, Humphreys & Yao, 1998; Smith, 1964; Super &
Bachrach, 1957; Wai, Lubinski, Bennow & Steiger, 2009; Webb, Lubinski & Benbow,
2007). Individual differences in spatial ability contribute to learning, the development of
expertise, and securing advanced educational and occupational credentials in STEM
(Lubinski, 2010)
22
Experience: Spatial Abilities in the SeaPerch Program
The SeaPerch program, started by Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea
Grant (MITSG) in 2003, is aimed at igniting students’ enthusiasm for science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics through hands-on discovery of spatial ability
and mental rotation tasks. The SeaPerch is a simple, remotely operated underwater
vehicle (ROV), made from PVC pipe and other inexpensive, easily available materials.
ROVs like the SeaPerch are used to chart the waterways and oceans and gather data
based on location and depth through spatial ability activities (Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 2011). Students experience simulations based on real world tasks that
ROVs do (e.g. recovering salvage materials, plugging an oil well) where spatial thinking
is required for the redesign process as students must perceive how performance will be
altered by changes in weight, size, and or addition of appendages.
In addition to the spatial reasoning of frame construction and alterations, driving
and navigating with a SeaPerch ROV challenges spatial thinking because even a small
depth of water distorts visual perception, and provides a great platform
for discussion about vision versus imaging in space. MIT SeaPerch researchers (2011)
note how students discover other ways of sensing, using sonar, or looking for temperature
signals by mapping out three dimension rotational space.
Age and Gender Differences in Spatial Abilities: Mathematics Achievement
Fennema and Sherman (1977) examined the degree to which spatial ability was
related to mathematics achievement. The results of their research revealed that previous
mathematical learning strongly affects the mathematical achievement scores, and that
spatial visualization is relevant to mathematics. The researchers also found that societal
23
expectations affect spatial ability, scholastic achievement, and confidence in females,
beginning at a very young age. Spatial training and experience are often viewed by
society as male sex-typed activities. Girls are limited in exploring spatial relationships,
thus causing delayed development in spatial ability (Haydel, 2009). The outcome of this
delay causes school-age girls and boys to function at different levels in mathematics
(Malzahn, 2002; Hembree 1990).
Baenninger and Newcombe (1995) pointed out that spatial ability as a specific
content area is taught less obviously in schools than other mathematics topics. Gender
differences exist in mathematics and mental accuracy, but not in mental rotation speed,
for children age 8. Whereas females outperformed males on measures of verbal fluency,
males outperformed females on certain tests of mathematics performance and spatial
ability (Halpern, 1992; Heil & Jansen-Osmann, 2008).
Spatial ability can be generally defined as the skills of generating, transforming,
representing, and recalling symbolic, nonlinguistic information (Roberts, 1999). The
parietal lobe is thought to be involved in spatial ability, and particularly involved in
mental rotation. Mental rotation tasks have long been used to measure differential
abilities (Waber, Calson & Mann, 1982). Mental rotation refers to the ability to imagine
the rotation of an object in space, and is defined as the ability to rotate two or three-
dimensional objects in the imagination (Harris, Egan, Sonkkila, Tochon, Paxinos &
Watson, 2000).
Peters, Chishol, and Laeng in a 1994 study observed male and female engineering
students and their experience with spatial abilities measured by the Mental Rotation Task.
They mentioned that there were gender differences favoring males but there were no
24
significant gender difference in academic course performance. The relation between the
difference in spatial ability and performance in science and mathematics subject areas,
especially with reference to females, must be viewed with caution. Gender differences
on this MRT task are robust only on the first encounter, with weaker effects, or no
significant gender differences observed in mathematics performance (Peters, Chishol &
Laeng, 1995).
Spatial abilities are needed by a variety of people ranging from engineers to the
quarterback of the high school football team. Researchers believe one’s spatial abilities,
for example, mental rotation, may be as important as one’s demonstrative abilities. There
is a significant relationship between spatial ability and achievement in mathematics
(Hegarty & Kozhevnikov, 1999). It is important that students feel comfortable with
spatial rotation so that they can apply learned techniques to real world situations.
Several biological and experiential factors have been proposed to account for the
male advantage in mathematics ability. For example, factors such as genetic and
hormonal explanations (Grimshaw, Bryden & Finegan, 1995; Kimura & Hampson,
1994), differential socialization experiences (Baenninger & Newcombe, 1989), diverse
educational experiences (Richardson, 1994), parental encouragement of gender-typed
activities (Lytton & Romney, 1991), and gender-role identification (Signorella &
Jamison, 1986) have been proposed as possible factors related to gender differences in
spatial skills. Studies have focused on the possible relation of gender differences in
environmental input to gender differences in spatial skill and mathematical growth.

25
Age and Gender-Related Differences in Spatial Abilities: Biological
Gender differences in spatial ability have been found primarily in tests of spatial
relations and are not found in tests of spatial visualizations (Hegarty & Kozhevnikov,
1999). High levels of estrogen have been linked to relatively depressed spatial abilities
as well as to enhanced speech and manual skill related tasks (Pinker & Spelke, 2007).
Analyses showed a small but significant correlation between spatial ability and pubertal
timing, as well as significant correlations between spatial ability and several variables
measuring aspects of masculinity. The increase in rotations when figures are copied from
memory, where children must rely on a mental representation, lends support to this view
(Eldred, 1973). There is some evidence to support the biologically based explanation.
Males showed an increase in right hemispheric activation while processing spatial
information. Conversely, females did not show an increase in right hemisphere activation
(Turos & Ervin, 2000). Although research has shown different brain activations for
males and females, there still is controversy as to what extent nature and nurture are
involved. The type of environment and the activities that are suggested for each gender
also will influence the development of spatial abilities (Turos & Ervin, 2000).
Waber (1977) researched the effect of age at puberty on spatial ability and
recognized that late maturers of both genders perform better on measures of spatial
ability than early maturers do. He hypothesized that because puberty usually occurs
about two years later for boys than for girls, such an effect might explain the gender
difference (Waber, Carlson & Mann, 1977; Newcombe, Bandura & Taylor, 1983). In a
study of girls (grades 5 to 8) and boys (grades 8 to 10), Waber demonstrated that late
maturers had higher spatial scores than early maturers, within age and gender.
26
Data collected on primary school age children differ depending at which the age
the gender differences emerged (Heil & Jansen-Osmann, 2008). Children showing high
mental rotation ability were more likely to show evidence of rotation visual stimuli on the
chronometric measure than low-mental rotation ability children (Waber, Carlson &
Mann, 1982). Research indicates that females excel in verbal episodic memory tasks,
such as remembering words, objects, pictures or everyday events; males outperform
females in remembering symbolic, nonlinguistic information, known as visual-spatial
processing (Blazhenkova, Kozhevnikov & Becker, 2008).
The presence of gender differences in accuracy-based measures (paper-pencil,
math, and chronometrical) in mental rotation and mathematics performance are detected
well before puberty (Heil & Jansen-Osmann, 2008). Subjects who reached puberty late
had higher spatial ability than those who reached puberty early. Because males reach
puberty later than females, gender-related difference in pubertal timing might underlie the
gender-related difference in spatial ability (Newcombe & Dubas, 1992). Newcombe
(1992) suggested that early and late maturers might differ in spatial ability, within
gender, because of differences in their personality or interest patterns, as well as
differences in patterns of hemispheric organization. The gender differences may arise
from males completing the mental rotations faster and hence completing more during the
test duration. Koscik (2009) generalized that the mental rotation strategy was spatial for
males and verbal for females.
Mental rotation is one of the spatial abilities that have received the most attention,
possibly because these gender differences are consistently found. Some claim that these
differences emerge with puberty (Linn & Petersen 1985; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974),
27
whereas others maintain that it is evident much earlier in development (Levine et. al.,
1999; Voyer, Voyer & Bryden, 1995).
Age and Gender Related Differences in Spatial Abilities: Experimental
Existing studies (Blume & Zembar, 2009, Levine et. al., 1999; Dueax, 1984) have
reported differences in spatially relevant input to females and males at school and at
home. At school, preschool teachers spent more time with males than females and
usually interacted with males in the block, construction, sand play, and climbing areas
and with females in the dramatic play area (Ebbeck, 1984). At home, preschool males
frequently engaged in spatial activities more often than preschool females, both alone and
in conjunction with the caregivers. Males have greater access to so-called male toys than
females, accounting for at least a portion of the sex difference in performance (Levine et.
al., 1999).
Gender differences on spatial tasks exist as early as the preschool years. Males as
young as 4 years of age performed better than females on a task that involved replicating
spatiotemporal patterns tapped out by the experimenter on a set of blocks (Levine et. al.,
1999). Four- and 5-year old males also copied a 3-D LEGO model faster than same age
females, but did not differ from females on a 2-D puzzle task. Kindergarten males more
accurately constructed a 3-D model of their classroom than did kindergarten females
(Levine, 1999).
When environments are similar (enriched or deprived), males outperform females
in spatial ability (Joseph, 2011). “Hence environmental influences do not cause these
gender differences which are obviously innate” (Joseph, 2000, p. 42). Females, starting
from a young age, are called on less often by teachers, show score and enrollment gaps in
28
mathematics and science, and receive fewer and lower-quality comments from teachers
(Weaver-Hightower, 2003).
Chapter Summary
Research in the field of mathematics education has indicated that numerous
factors strongly influence students’ mathematics achievement (Byrnes, 2003). Among
the factors that relate to mathematics achievement are spatial abilities and a
subcomponent of this ability, mental rotation (Halpern, 2000).
Some researchers have found positive correlations between experience with
spatial-type activities that include certain sports, games, and toys. Students with a higher
level of spatial visualization skill tended to use spatial skills in problem solving more
often than students with a lower level of skill (Fenneman & Tartre, 1985). Experience
with these activities may reduce the magnitude of gender differences and may result in
stronger spatial abilities and, further, higher achievement in mathematics (Trudeau and
Shepard, 2008). Few studies have examined differences between genders in learning
mental rotation tasks in school aged children.
Research also documents significant gender differences with males consistently
outperforming females on all spatial-ability measures (McGee, 1979). Numerous studies
on patterns of spatial task performance as a function of gender have been conducted and
reported for several years (Rilea, 2008). Tests variously have required individuals to find
hidden shapes, match 2-D or 3-D figures, balance figures with respect to horizontal or
vertical axes, solve mazes, imagine the results of rotations or manipulations of figures,
and more (Montello, Gottsegen & Goodchild, 1999).

29
A review of the literature confirmed that not enough research has been conducted
to establish a clear connection between spatial experience, math achievement and math
ability, yet such exploration is essential for meaningful learning and teaching and future
mathematics curricula. One approach to helping all youth develop visual-spatial abilities
is expanding their successful learning experiences and developing gender-neutral related
educational and occupational competencies and interests. Research has shown that a
relationship does exist between experience with certain spatial tasks and mental rotation
performance, and these findings indicate that gender differences may be the results of
differential spatial experiences (Roberts, 1999; Rilea, 2008; Scali, Brownlow & Hicks,
2000).
The research presented suggests that attaining a better understanding of how
children at various ages perform on mental rotation tasks and the possible variables that
influence this performance may serve as the basis for intervention to help improve
students’ mental rotation ability and possibly increase their performance in mathematics.
These concepts form the premise from the questions this researcher posed and the
resulting research methodology described in the following chapter.

Chapter III
RESEARCH METHOD
A review of the literature revealed that researchers have divided spatial abilities into
numerous and discrete categories, relying on different mental constructs. These
constructs include mental rotation, spatial visualization and spatial perception. Linn &
Petersen (1985) stated that researchers should refrain from treating the multitude of
distinct spatial abilities as if they constituted a single entity but rather they should seek
connections between specific spatial abilities and closely defined mathematics
achievement. Authors have noted the connections of spatial ability to mathematics
understanding (Pandiscio, 1994; Linn & Peterson, 1985); however, current research
studies of the differences in spatial ability are sparse. Therefore, understanding the
experiences that may improve spatial abilities may contribute knowledge and guide
educational leaders to enhance mathematics connections.
This study used a quantitative design to look at the correlation between the areas
of spatial ability and experience influenced by the Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) SeaPerch program. This chapter reviews the research questions
that were used as a foundation for the design to gather data from students enrolled in
schools that participated in the SeaPerch program. The following sections include a
rationale for the design, the participant selection, and the measuring instrumentation used.
30
31
An account of the data collection, the procedures, and the methodological limitations also
follows.
Problem
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) is a curriculum to
strengthen students’ science and math achievement through project-based learning
activities. As part of the STEM program, the SeaPerch initiative was developed by
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2003). SeaPerch is an innovative underwater
robotics program that instructs students how to build an underwater Remotely Operated
Vehicle (ROV) following a STEM curriculum, including spatial thinking and rotation
ability. The SeaPerch program is designed to teach basic skills in ship and submarine
design and encourages students to explore naval architecture, and ocean engineering
through spatial ability and mental rotation. The components of the SeaPerch program
encourage extensive, hands-on experiences with tools; these activities are designed to aid
in the development of spatial thinking.
This research study sought to determine if the SeaPerch program and its spatial
experience and training gave the opportunity to develop strategies not only in
manipulating three dimensional objects but in strengthening mathematical ability (e.g.;
spatial thinking) in elementary, middle, and high school students with specific focus on
age and gender. Knowledge gained by this researcher through the data analysis could
change the awareness and importance of spatial skill and guide future research toward
factors that could help infuse spatial experience within the mathematics curricula.
32
Participants
Participants in this research study were enrolled in a Maryland Public School
system. This school system is among the 50 largest school systems in the country. The
population for this study included elementary, middle and high school students, ranging
in age from 10 to 18 years. This research study sampled from two already formed
groups. These groups consisted of students that either participated in the afterschool
SeaPerch program (treatment) or students that did not participate in the afterschool
SeaPerch program (control) for the 2011-2012 school year.
The population of the treatment group consisted of students who volunteered to
participate in the SeaPerch program at 30 schools (516 students) ranging from grades 4 to
12. The breakdown was as follows: two high schools (72 students), seven middle schools
(121 students), and 22 elementary schools (323 students). The SeaPerch program limits
each school to 20 participants because of materials and resources. The second group was
defined as students that were enrolled in a school that has an existing SeaPerch program;
however they did not participate in the SeaPerch program. This group will be referred to
as the control group and comprised students in similar grade levels and MRT
preassessment scores. This group consisted of students who volunteered to participate in
the research study but did not participate in the SeaPerch program at 30 schools (223
students) ranging from grades 4 to 12. The breakdown was as follows: two high schools
(77 students), seven middle schools (73 students), and 22 elementary schools (73
students). “Control groups help separate the effects attributable to a treatment from the
effects attributable to irrelevancies that are correlated with a treatment” (Cook &
Campbell, 1979, p. 8).

33
Mental Rotation Test
The Mental Rotation Test (MRT) (Peters, 1995) was selected to represent a
measure of mental ability as described in the meta-analysis conducted by Linn and
Petersen (1985). The meta-analysis indicated that, unlike other spatial-ability measures,
the MRT has a small relationship with verbal ability, perceptual speed, and visual
memory. This low correlation suggested participants generally cannot rely on their
verbal skills to solve the mental rotation problems on this test. Further, performance on
MRT (Peters, 1995) has shown the most consistent gender differences in favor of males
across all age levels (Masters, 1998; Voyer, 1995). The MRT (Peters, 1995) has become
the most consistently used mental rotation test since its publication (Quaiser-Pohl &
Lehmann, 2002; Voyer & Sullivan, 2003). Written permission to use the MRT (Peters,
1995) was obtained from Peters with the agreement that copies of the test would not be
included in this document (See Appendix A).
Peters’ (1995) MRT reported internal test-item consistency as .88 and the test-
retake reliability of .83, indicating that the reliability of the test is satisfactory. Peters’
(1995) MRT also reported the Cronbach alpha coefficient for reliability was calculated
and reported internal consistency of .85. Based on the definition of mental rotation as the
“ability to rotate a two- or three- dimensional figure rapidly and accurately” (Linn &
Petersen, 1985, p. 1483) and the format of the test, it can be assumed that MRT does have
good construct validity. Further research has identified MRT (Peters, 1995) as a test of
mental rotation ability (Holliday-Darr, Blasko & Dwyer, 2000; Peters, 1985; Sorby,
Lepold & Gorska, 1999).

34
Procedures
This researcher obtained approval for this study through the Notre Dame of
Maryland University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). The school system’s Office of
Advanced Studies also gave permission to conduct research (Appendix B). Students and
parents or guardians of the students received and completed assent and consent forms
before their students were allowed to participate in the study (Appendix C). This
researcher’s study was organized by level of institutions consisting of elementary,
middle, and high school. The SeaPerch group participated in STEM activities in the
SeaPerch curriculum that allowed students to discover and according to O’Boyle (2005),
potentially activate their parietal lobes thus providing visual spatial experience.
In addition, the control group consisted of students that were representative of the same
population who were not participants of the SeaPerch program. Classroom teachers at
SeaPerch schools volunteered to administer the MRT during these Non-SeaPerch
students’ free time such as flex time or after school. All students took the MRT (Peters,
1995) at the beginning and at the end of the study. All participants were asked (by their
school’s SeaPerch or their classroom instructor) to complete a 20-item multiple choice
task (MRT) that measured spatial ability. The MRT (Peters) was utilized to determine
student ability with problems that are known to use spatial ability in order to find a
solution. This task involved looking at a target object and determining which one of
three objects matched the target object. This instrument mirrored geometric concepts
taught in mathematics classes (Appendix D). A detailed instructional script was given to
each SeaPerch or classroom instructor who provided directions for the participants and
timing per each task (Appendix E). The MRT instrument took approximately 15 minutes
to complete. The task was handed out and collected by SeaPerch or classroom
35
instructors, placed in a sealed envelope, collected by the researcher, and taken to the
school system’s Advanced Studies Office. Personnel in the school system’s Advanced
Studies Office assigned each student a code which eliminated any risk for this researcher
seeing the participant’s name or the identification number. Each student was given a
pseudonym/code to protect his or her identity and maintain confidentiality. Data was
collected in a whole group setting. Near the conclusion of the SeaPerch program, all
participants took the MRT again. After the research study’s completion, the MRT was
placed in a sealed envelope by the SeaPerch or classroom teacher, collected by the
researcher, and taken to the school system’s Advanced Studies Office where the
pseudonym/code previously assigned to each participant was mapped to his or her pre
MRT. Demographic information such as age and gender was provided by the school
system’s Advanced Studies Office for each coded student.
The data were collected at various elementary, middle, and high schools in a
Maryland county who participated in the SeaPerch program with the assistance of a
SeaPerch or classroom instructor at each school that offers the SeaPerch program.
SeaPerch research data are kept in a locked box in a locked office and will be destroyed
five years after the research study was completed. Research documents are accessible
only to the researcher. Electronic files of the data were stored on a personal computer
with password protection. Results of the pre and post MRT (Peters, 1995) were analyzed
through analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and t distributions.

36
Questions
The following research questions were addressed:
1. Do Mental Rotation Test scores increase for students participating and not
participating in the SeaPerch program as measured by paired samples t test?
different between students who participate in the SeaPerch program and
students who do not participate in the SeaPerch program as measured by an
independent samples t test?
3. Are the gain scores different for age between Mental Rotation Test scores for
students participating and not participating in the SeaPerch program, as
different for age between students who participate or who do not participate in
the SeaPerch program, as measured as measured by an independent samples t
test?
5. Are the Mental Rotation Test gain scores different for gender between
students who participate or who do not participate in the SeaPerch program, as
different for gender between students who participate or who do not
participate in the SeaPerch program, as measured by an independent samples t
test?
37
7. Is there an interaction effect between age and gender of students who
participate in the SeaPerch program or do not participate in the SeaPerch
program and their Mental Rotation Test scores, as measured by ANCOVA?
Overview/Summary of the ResearchThe data from this research revealed how
experience and spatial manipulations correlate. The National Research Council (NRC,
2006, p. 6) corroborates National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ stance regarding
spatial thinking by stating: “spatial thinking can be learned and it can and should be
taught at all levels in the education system.” A key component of the SeaPerch program
was for the students to discover their use of spatial visualization and transition learned
experience to conceptual thinking. Knowledge gained by this researcher through the data
analysis could be the leverage that will incorporate spatial visualization and mental
rotation which require higher order thinking into teaching and learning, both raising the
performance outcomes for students.

Chapter IV
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
This chapter presents the research findings for students’ ability to mentally rotate
3-D objects in space. This researcher used a quantitative methodology to determine if the
SeaPerch program with its spatial experience training gives the opportunity for students
to develop strategies not only in manipulating three dimensional objects but also in
strengthening mathematical ability in elementary, middle, and high school students with a
specific focus on age and gender. Studies have suggested that individuals who possess
the ability to manipulate objects and information spatially are more likely than
individuals who do not possess this ability to display higher achievement in mathematics
(Padiscio, 1994; Ballista, 1990). Little assessment has been done, however, in
determining whether a correlation exists between spatial experience and spatial ability.
The researcher hypothesized that mental rotation ability is a combination of students’
experience, age, and gender.
This researcher received approval from and conducted the research in one large,
diverse school system in Maryland. Data were obtained from a pre-post administration of
the Vandenberg & Kuse Mental Rotation Task (MRT) from students.
This chapter will present the findings from measures used to answer the primary
research questions above and analyze the related data. After presenting instrumentation
reliabilities, it will summarize the demographic characteristics of study participants. The
38
39
first section will include the overall study of whether significance occurs between
SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch students with regard to MRT scores. The second section
will include student responses to the pre and post MRT with data analyzed according to
experience participating and not-participating in the SeaPerch program. The third section
will describe the pre and post MRT scores, and a comparison of the two in regard to age
gender. The final section will analyze the differences in MRT scores between SeaPerch
and Non-SeaPerch students and examine the effects between age and gender.
Descriptive Statistics for Students
The following table describes the number of students, the gender and the level of
schooling of students participating in the study. Students in elementary school are 6 to 11
years old, middle school age students are 12 to 14 years old, and high school age students
are 15 to 18 years old.
Table 1
Student Participant Demographics (n=739)
Characteristic Number of Students
SeaPerch Control
Gender Female 197 109
Male 319 114
Age SeaPerch Control
Elementary Female 148 35

Male 175 38
Middle Female 30 42
Male 91 31
High Female 19 32
Male 53 45
40
Descriptive Statistics for Mental Rotation Test Preassessment and Postassessment
Scores by SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch Students
To address the research questions regarding the spatial ability of students who did
or did not participate in the SeaPerch program, it was necessary to measure the students’
mental rotation knowledge. The means and standard deviations for SeaPerch and Non-
SeaPerch students on the MRT preassessment scores were calculated. As can be seen in
Table 2, the preassessment means and standard deviations for the two groups were nearly
equal for the MRT. There was a significant effect for MRT preassessment,
t(737) = -2.791, p < .005. Cohen’s d was used to calculate size effect sizes for the MRT
preassessment. Further, Cohen’s effect size value d =.225, suggests low practical
significance and a small effect size.

41
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Mental Rotation Test Preassessment and Postassessment Scores
by Group
Group n Mean SD p Effect Size

MRT Preassessment <.005 .225
SeaPerch 516 10.01 2.303
Non-SeaPerch 323 10.52 2.224
MRT Postassessment <.001 .457
SeaPerch 516 11.35 1.809
Non-SeaPerch 323 10.49 1.952
SeaPerch 516 <.001 .647
MRT Preassessment 10.01 2.303
MRT Postassessment 11.35 1.809
Non-SeaPerch 323 .847 .014
MRT Preassessment 10.52 2.224
MRT Postassessment 10.49 1.952

42
For the MRT postassessment, however, the difference in means between SeaPerch
and Non-SeaPerch students was more pronounced. There was a significant effect for
MRT postassessment, t (737) = 5.817, p < .005, with SeaPerch students receiving higher
MRT scores than Non-SeaPerch students. Effect size was calculated, using Cohen’s d for
the MRT postassessment d = .457. Thus, the postassessment mean scores of the SeaPerch
and the Non-SeaPerch students differ by .457 of a standard deviation, which is generally
considered a small effect.
Results of Research Question 1: MRT Scores for
SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch Students
The first research question asked the extent to which the MRT scores increased
for students participating in the SeaPerch program. A paired samples t test was
conducted to compare scores on the MRT for those who participated in the SeaPerch
program. There was a significant gain in the preassessment scores for SeaPerch students
(M =10.01, SD = 2.303) when compared to postassessment scores for SeaPerch students
(M = 11.35, SD = 1.809); t (515) =13.840, p < .01. The effect size as measured by
Cohen’s d = .647, indicating a medium practical significance, as shown in Table 3. The
95% confidence interval for the mean difference between the two scores was 1.156 and
1.538. The eta square index indicated that 9% of the variance of MRT scores was
accounted for by whether a student participated in the SeaPerch program. These results
suggest that participating in the SeaPerch positively influences scores on the MRT.
43
Table 3
Paired Samples t Test for Mental Rotation Test Preassessment and Postassessment for
SeaPerch Students
Group Mean Diff. SD t df p
SeaPerch 1.347 2.211 13.840 515 <.001*

(n=516)
*Statistically significant at p < .05
Regarding students not participating in the SeaPerch program, but who are
enrolled in a school that offers the SeaPerch program: a paired samples t test was
conducted to compare scores on the MRT for those who did not participate in the
SeaPerch program. There was no significant gain in the preassessment scores for Non-
SeaPerch students (M=10.52, SD= 2.224) when compared to postassessment scores for
Non-SeaPerch students (M= 10.49, SD= 1.952); t (222) = -.234. The effect size as
measured by Cohen’s d =. 014, indicating a negligible difference, as shown in Table 4.
The 95% confidence interval for the mean difference between the two scores was .199
and -.253. The eta square index indicated that no percentage of the variance of MRT
scores was accounted for by whether a participated in the SeaPerch program. These
results suggest that not participating in the SeaPerch program did not influence scores on
the Mental Rotation Test.
Table 4
Non-SeaPerch Students
Non-SeaPerch -.027 1.714 -.234 222 .815

(n=223)
44
Results of Research Question 2: MRT Pre and Post Assessment Scores for
SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch Students
The second research question asked the extent to which a differential shift
between means occur on the Mental Rotation preassessment for students that participate
in the SeaPerch program and students who do not participate in the SeaPerch program.
An independent samples t test was conducted to evaluate whether SeaPerch students
score higher on the MRT preassessment than Non-SeaPerch students. The test was
significant, t (737) = -2.791, p < .01. Students in the SeaPerch program (M = 10.01, SD =
2.303) scored lower on the MRT preassessment than Non-SeaPerch students (M = 10.52,
SD = 2.224). The 95% confidence interval for the differences in means was quite small,
ranging from -.868 and -.151. The effect size as measured by Cohen’s d = . 225,
indicating a small practical significance. The eta square index indicated that 1% of the
variance of MRT preassessment scores was accounted for by whether a student
participated in the SeaPerch program as shown in Table 5.
Table 5
Independent Samples t Test for Mental Rotation Test Preassessment for SeaPerch and
Group Mean SD t df p
SeaPerch 10.01 2.303 -2.791 737 <.005*

Non-SeaPerch 10.52 2.224
(n=739)
Regarding the extent to which a differential shift between means occur on the
Mental Rotation postassessment for students who participate in the SeaPerch program
and students who do not participate in the SeaPerch program: an independent samples t
45
test was conducted to evaluate whether SeaPerch students score higher on the MRT Post
assessment than Non-SeaPerch students. The test was significant, t (737) = 5.817,
p < .01. Students in the SeaPerch program (M = 11.35, SD = 1.809) scored higher on the
MRT postassessment than Non-SeaPerch students (M = 10.49, SD = 1.952). The effect
size as measured by Cohen’s d = .457, indicating a small practical significance. The 95%
confidence interval for the differences in means ranged from .572 and 1.156. The eta
square index indicated that 9% of the variance of MRT postassessment scores was
accounted for by whether a student participated in the SeaPerch program as shown in
Table 6.
Table 6
Independent Samples t Test for Mental Rotation Test Postassessment for SeaPerch and
SeaPerch and 11.35 1.809 5.817 737 <.001*

(n=739)
Scores for SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch Students by Age
To address the research questions regarding the age of the students who did or did
not participate in the SeaPerch program, it was necessary to measure the students’ mental
rotation knowledge at each level. In this study, ‘age’ represents three school level
categories, elementary (6-11 years old), middle (12-14 years old) and high (15-18 years
old). The mean and standard deviation for SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch students on the
Mental Rotation Test preassessment and postassessment scores were organized by age.
46
As can be seen in Table 7, the preassessment means and standard deviations for Non-
SeaPerch students were slightly higher at each level than those obtained by the SeaPerch
students.
Table 7
for SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch Students by Age
Age SeaPerch Non-SeaPerch
n M SD d p n M SD d p
Elementary 323 .769 <.001 73 .042 .644

School
Preassessment 9.71 2.305 9.95 2.576
11.29 1.803 9.85 2.184
Postassessment
Middle School 121 .447 <.001 73 .018 .858
Preassessment 9.98 2.500 10.11 2.395
10.98 1.971 10.07 1.946
Postassessment
High School 72 .747 <.001 77 .042 .748
Preassessment 11.36 1.248 11.44 1.175
12.26 1.163 11.49 1.199
Postassessment
For the Mental Rotation Test postassessment, however, the difference in means
between SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch students were more pronounced. For the SeaPerch
students, the mean and the standard deviation at each level were higher with a large
practical significance denoted by Cohen’s d for elementary and high school students. A
small effect was noted for middle school students. There was a significant effect for
MRT, p < .001, with SeaPerch students receiving higher MRT scores than Non-SeaPerch
students in all levels of schooling.

47
Results of Research Question 3: MRT Pre and Post Assessment Scores for
SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch Students by Age
The third research question asked to what extent age influences MRT gain scores
for students participating in the SeaPerch program. A paired samples t test was
conducted to compare scores on the MRT in those who participated in the elementary
school SeaPerch program. There was a significant difference in the preassessment scores
for elementary SeaPerch students (M =9.71, SD = 2.305) and postassessment scores for
elementary SeaPerch students (M = 11.29, SD = 1.803); t (322) = 11.813, p < .01. The
effect size as measured by Cohen’s d = .769, indicating a medium practical significance,
as shown in Table 8. The 95% confidence interval for the mean difference between the
two scores was 1.313 and 1.838. The eta square index indicated that 12% of the variance
of MRT preassessment scores was accounted for by whether a student participated in the
SeaPerch program. These results suggest that participating in the elementary SeaPerch
program influences scores on the MRT.
Table 8
Elementary SeaPerch Students
Elementary 1.576 2.398 11.813 322 <.001*

SeaPerch
(n=323)
A paired samples t test was conducted to compare scores on the MRT in those
that participated in the middle school SeaPerch program. There was a significant
difference in the preassessment scores for middle SeaPerch students (M = 9.98, SD =

48
2.500) and postassessment scores for middle SeaPerch students (M = 10.98, SD = 1.971);
t (120) = 5.706, p < .01. The effect size as measured by Cohen’s d = .447, indicating a
small practical significance, as shown in Table 9. The 95% confidence interval for the
mean difference between the two scores was .653 and 1.347. The eta square index
indicated that 4% of the variance of MRT postassessment scores was accounted for by
whether a student participated in the SeaPerch program. These results suggest that
participating in the middle SeaPerch program influences scores on the MRT.
Table 9
Middle SeaPerch Students
Middle 1.000 1.928 5.706 120 <.001*

SeaPerch
(n=121)
A paired samples t test was conducted to compare scores on the MRT in those who
participated in the high school SeaPerch program. There was a significant difference in
the preassessment scores for high school SeaPerch students (M = 11.36, SD = 1.248) and
postassessment scores for high school SeaPerch students (M = 12.26, SD = 1.163); t (71)
= 4.889, p < .01. The effect size as measured by Cohen’s d = .747, indicating a medium
practical significance, as shown in Table 10. The 95% confidence interval for the mean
difference between the two scores was .535 and 1.271. The eta square index indicated
that 12% of the variance of MRT postassessment scores was accounted for by whether a
student participated in the SeaPerch program. These results suggest that participating in
the high school SeaPerch program influences scores on the MRT.

49
Table 10
High School SeaPerch Students
High School .903 1.567 4.889 71 <.001*

SeaPerch
(n=72)
Regarding to what extent does age influence MRT scores for students not
participating in the SeaPerch program but are enrolled in a school that offers the
SeaPerch program: a paired samples t test was conducted to compare scores on the MRT
in those who did not participate in the elementary school SeaPerch program. There was
not a significant difference in the preassessment scores for elementary Non-SeaPerch
students (M=9.95, SD= 2.576) and postassessment scores for elementary Non-SeaPerch
students (M= 9.85, SD= 2.184); t (72) = -.464. The standardized effect size index, d was
.041 with near perfect overlap in the distributions for the MRT scores of elementary Non-
SeaPerch preassessment and postassessment, as shown in Table 11. The 95% confidence
interval for the mean difference between the two scores was -.508 and .316. The eta
square index indicated that no percentage of the variance of MRT postassessment scores
was accounted for by whether a student participated in the SeaPerch program. These
results suggest that not participating in the elementary school SeaPerch program had no
influence on the MRT scores.

50
Table 11
Elementary Non-SeaPerch Students
Elementary -.096 1.765 -.464 72 .644

Non-SeaPerch
(n=73)

that did not participate in the middle school SeaPerch program. There was not a
significant difference in the preassessment scores for middle Non-SeaPerch students (M =
10.11, SD = 2.395) and postassessment scores for middle Non-SeaPerch students (M=
10.07, SD = 1.946); t (72) = -.180. The effect size as measured by Cohen’s d = .018,
indicating a negligible difference, as shown in Table 12. The 95% confidence interval for
the mean difference between the two scores was -.497 and 0.415. The eta square index
indicated that no percentage of the variance of MRT postassessment scores was
accounted for by whether a student participated in the SeaPerch program. These results
suggest that not participating in the middle SeaPerch program had no influence on the
MRT scores.
Table 12
Middle Non-SeaPerch Students
Middle -.041 1.954 -.180 72 .858

Non-SeaPerch
(n=73)
51
who did not participate in the high school SeaPerch program. There was not a significant
difference in the preassessment scores for high Non-SeaPerch students (M = 11.44, SD =
1.175) and postassessment scores for high Non-SeaPerch students (M = 11.49, SD =
1.199); t (76) = .323. The standardized effect size index, d was .042 with considerable
overlap in the distributions for the MRT scores of High Non-SeaPerch preassessment and
postassessment, as shown in Table 13. The 95% confidence interval for the mean
difference between the two scores was -.269 and .373. The eta square index indicated
that no percentage of the variance of MRT postassessment scores was accounted for by
whether a student participated in the SeaPerch program. These results suggest that not
participating in the high SeaPerch program had no influence on the MRT scores.
Table 13
High Non-SeaPerch Students
High .052 1.413 .323 76 .748

Non-SeaPerch
(n=77)
Results of Research Question 4: MRT Pre and Post assessment Scores for
SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch Students by Age
The fourth research question asked to what extent age influences a differential
shift in gain scores on the Mental Rotation preassessment for students who participate in
the SeaPerch program and students who do not participate in the SeaPerch program. An
independent samples t test was conducted to evaluate whether the elementary school
52
SeaPerch students score higher on the MRT preassessment than elementary Non-
SeaPerch students. The test was not significant, t (394) = -.763. Students in the
Elementary SeaPerch program (M = 9.71, SD = 2.305) scored nearly the same on the
MRT preassessment as Elementary Non-SeaPerch students (M = 9.95, SD = 2.576). The
95% confidence interval for the differences in means ranged from -.834 and .367. The
effect size as measured by Cohen’s d = .098, indicating a negligible difference. The eta
square index indicated that no percentage of the variance of MRT preassessment scores
was accounted for by whether a student participated in the elementary SeaPerch program.
Table 14 shows the summary statistics for the elementary SeaPerch and elementary Non-
SeaPerch students.
Table 14
Non-SeaPerch for Elementary School Students
SeaPerch 9.71 2.305 -.763 394 .446

(n=396)
An independent samples t test was conducted to evaluate whether middle school
SeaPerch students score higher on the MRT preassessment than middle Non-SeaPerch
students. The test was not significant, t (192) = -.346. Students in the middle SeaPerch
program (M = 9.98, SD = 2.500) scored nearly the same on the MRT preassessment as
middle Non-SeaPerch students (M = 10.11, SD = 2.395). The 95% confidence interval
for the differences in means ranged from -.846 and .593. The effect size as measured by
Cohen’s d = .052, indicating a negligible difference. The eta square index indicated that
no percentage of the variance of MRT preassessment scores was accounted for by

53
whether a student participated in the middle SeaPerch program. Table 15 shows the
summary statistics for the middle SeaPerch and middle Non-SeaPerch students.
Table 15
Non-SeaPerch for Middle School Students
SeaPerch 9.98 2.50 -.346 192 .730

(n=194)
An independent samples t test was conducted to evaluate whether that high school
SeaPerch students score higher on the MRT preassessment than high school Non-
SeaPerch students. The test was not significant, t (147) = -.405. Students in the high
school SeaPerch program (M = 11.36, SD = 1.248) scored nearly the same on the MRT
preassessment as high school Non-SeaPerch students (M = 11.44, SD = 1.175). The 95%
confidence interval for the differences in means ranged from -.473 and 0.312. The effect
size as measured by Cohen’s d = .066, indicating a negligible difference. The eta square
index indicated that no percentage of the variance of MRT preassessment scores was
accounted for by whether a student participated in the high SeaPerch program. Table 16
shows the distributions for the high school SeaPerch and high school Non-SeaPerch
students.
54
Table 16
Non-SeaPerch for High School Students
SeaPerch 11.36 1.25 -.405 147 .686

(n=149)
Regarding to what extent age influences a differential shift in gains scores on the
Mental Rotation postassessment for students who participate in the SeaPerch program
and students who do not participate in the SeaPerch program: an independent samples t
test was conducted to evaluate whether elementary SeaPerch students score higher on the
MRT postassessment than elementary Non-SeaPerch students. The test was significant, t
(394) = 5.911, p < .01. Students in the elementary SeaPerch program (M = 11.29, SD =
1.803) scored higher on the MRT postassessment than elementary Non-SeaPerch students
(M = 9.85, SD = 2.184). The 95% confidence interval for the differences in means
ranged from .960 and 1.917. The effect size as measured by Cohen’s d = .719, indicating
a medium practical significance. The eta square index indicated that 11% of the variance
of MRT postassessment scores was accounted for by whether a student participated in the
elementary SeaPerch program. Table 17 shows the distributions for the elementary
SeaPerch and elementary Non-SeaPerch students.

55
Table 17
Non-SeaPerch for Elementary School Students
SeaPerch 11.29 1.803 5.911 394 <.001*

(n=396)
An independent samples t test was conducted to evaluate whether middle
SeaPerch students score higher on the MRT Post assessment than middle Non-SeaPerch
students. The test was significant, t (192) = 3.148, p < .01. Students in the middle
SeaPerch program (M = 10.98, SD = 1.971) scored higher on the MRT Post assessment
than middle Non-SeaPerch students (M = 10.07, SD = 1.946). The 95% confidence
interval for the differences in means ranged from 0.342 and 1.488. The effect size as
measured by Cohen’s d = .467, indicating a small practical significance. The eta square
index indicated that 11% of the variance of MRT Post assessment scores was accounted
for by whether a student participated in the middle SeaPerch program. Table 18 shows
the distributions for the middle SeaPerch and middle Non-SeaPerch students.
Table 18
Non-SeaPerch for Middle School Students
Group Mean SD t Df p
SeaPerch 10.98 1.97 3.148 192 <.002*

(n=194)

56
An independent samples t test was conducted to evaluate whether high school SeaPerch
students score higher on the MRT postassessment than high school Non-SeaPerch
students. The test was significant, t (147) = 3.977, p < .01. Students in the high school
SeaPerch program (M = 12.26, SD = 1.163) scored higher on the MRT postassessment
than high Non-SeaPerch students (M = 11.49, SD = 1.199). The 95% confidence interval
for the differences in means ranged from .388 and 1.153. The effect size as measured by
Cohen’s d = .652, indicating a medium practical significance. The eta square index
indicated that 10% of the variance of MRT Post assessment scores was accounted for by
whether a student participated in the high school SeaPerch program. Table 19 shows the
distributions for the high school SeaPerch and high school Non-SeaPerch students.
Table 19
Non-SeaPerch for High School Students
SeaPerch 12.26 1.16 3.98 147 <.001*

(n=149)
Scores by for SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch students by Gender
To address the research questions regarding the gender of the students who did or
did not participate in the SeaPerch program, it was necessary to measure the students’
mental rotation knowledge.

57
The mean and standard deviation for SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch students on the
MRT preassessment and postassessment scores were calculated by gender. As can be
seen in Table 20, male and female Non-SeaPerch preassessment means and standard
deviations for the MRT were nearly the same. Also noticeable, female Non-SeaPerch
scored slightly higher on the MRT preassessment than the female SeaPerch and male
Non-SeaPerch students. Male SeaPerch students scored the highest (M =11.53, SD =
1.713) on the MRT postassessment scores.
Table 20
Descriptive Statistics for Mental Rotation Test Preassessment and Postassessment Scores by
Gender
Gender SeaPerch Non-SeaPerch
n M SD D p n M SD d p
Female 197 .767 <.001 109 .093 .301

Preassessment 9.37 2.484 10.59 2.157
11.06 1.924 10.41 1.717
Postassessment
Male 319 .594 <.001 114 .049 .193
Preassessment 10.40 2.091 10.45 2.293
11.53 1.753 10.56 2.158
Postassessment
For the MRT postassessment, however, the difference in means between SeaPerch and
Non-SeaPerch students were quite similar, with the exception of the female SeaPerch
students. The female SeaPerch students scored the highest (M =11.06, SD = 1.924) on
the MRT postassessment, yielding a medium size effect of .767. There was a smaller
effect for middle school students than elementary and high school students. The gain
scores for students in the SeaPerch condition were limited to females, increasing 1.5
58
points. There was a significant effect for MRT, p < .001, with male and female
SeaPerch students receiving higher MRT scores than male and female Non-SeaPerch
students.
Results of Research Question 5: MRT Preassessment and Postassessment Scores for
SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch Students by Gender
The fifth research question asked to what extent gender influences MRT gain
scores for students who participate in the SeaPerch program. A paired samples t test was
conducted to evaluate whether the mean difference for SeaPerch students differ
significantly for male and female students. The test was significant, t (514) = 2.833, p <
.05. The gain for males in the SeaPerch program (M = 1.13, SD = 2.079) was less than
the females in the SeaPerch program (M = 1.70, SD = 2.373). The 95% confidence
interval for the differences in means was quite small, ranging from .173 and .955. The
effect size as measured by Cohen’s d = .255, indicating a small practical significance.
The eta square index indicated that 1% of the variance of MRT scores was accounted for
by whether a student participated in the SeaPerch program was male or female. Table 21
shows the data for the SeaPerch students.
Table 21
Paired t Test for Mental Rotation Test Pre and Post Assessment for SeaPerch Students by
Gender
SeaPerch .564 .199 2.833 514 .026*

(n=516)
Regarding to what extent gender influences MRT gain scores for students not
participating in the SeaPerch program but who are enrolled in a school that offers the
59
SeaPerch program: a paired samples t test was conducted to evaluate whether the mean
difference for Non-SeaPerch students differ significantly for male and female students.
The test was not significant, t (221) = -1.258. Males who did not participate in the
SeaPerch program (M = .11, SD = 1.671) gained less than one point and females who did
not participate in the SeaPerch program showed a slight drop in MRT scores of less than
0.2 points (M = -0.17, SD = 1.752). The 95% confidence interval for the differences in
means was wide, ranging from - .740 and .163. The effect size as measured by Cohen’s d
= .074, indicating a negligible difference. The eta square index indicated that less than
1% of the variance of MRT scores was accounted for by whether a student who did not
participate in the SeaPerch program was male or female. Table 22 shows the
distributions for the Non-SeaPerch students.
Table 22
Non-SeaPerch Students by Gender
Non-SeaPerch -.288 .229 -1.258 221 .210

(n=223)
Results of Research Question 6: MRT Preassessment and Postassessment Scores
for SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch Students by Gender
The sixth research question asked to what extent gender influences Mental
Rotation preassessment scores for students who participate in the SeaPerch program. An
independent samples t test was conducted to evaluate whether MRT preassessment scores
differ significantly for male and female SeaPerch students. The test was significant, t
(514) = -5.082. Males who did participate in the SeaPerch program (M = 10.40, SD =
60
2.091) preassessment MRT scored higher than the females who participated in the
SeaPerch program (M = 9.37, SD = 2.484). The 95% confidence interval for the
differences in means was quite small, ranging from -1.436 to -.635. The effect size as
measured by Cohen’s d = .449, indicating a small practical significance. The eta square
index indicated that 5% of the variance of MRT preassessment scores was accounted for
by whether a student participated in the SeaPerch program. Table 23 shows the data for
the SeaPerch students.
Table 23
Independent Samples t Test for Mental Rotation Test Preassessment for SeaPerch by
Gender
Female 9.37 2.48 -5.082 514 <.001*

Male 10.40 2.09
(n=516)
Regarding to what extent gender influences Mental Rotation preassessment scores
for students who did not participate in the SeaPerch program: an independent samples t
test was conducted to evaluate whether MRT preassessment scores differ significantly for
male and female Non-SeaPerch students. The test was not significant, t (221) =.468.
Males who did not participate in the SeaPerch program (M = 10.447, SD = 2.293) MRT
preassessment mean scored lower than the females who did not participate in the
SeaPerch program (M = 10.587, SD = 2.157). The effect size as measured by Cohen’s d
= .063, indicating a negligible difference. The eta square index indicated that no
percentage of the variance of MRT preassessment scores was accounted for by whether a
61
student did not participate in the SeaPerch program. Table 24 shows the distributions for
Non-SeaPerch students.
Table 24
Independent Samples t Test for Mental Rotation Test Preassessment for Non SeaPerch by
Gender
Female 10.59 2.16 .468 221 .640

Male 10.44 2.29
(n=223)
Regarding to what extent gender influences Mental Rotation postassessment gain
scores for students who participate in the SeaPerch program: an independent samples t
test was conducted to evaluate whether the mean gain scores for MRT postassessment
scores differ significantly for male and female Non-SeaPerch students. The test was
significant, t (514) = -2.900. Males who did participate in the SeaPerch program (M =
11.533, SD = 1.713) had a mean on the MRT postassessment greater than the females
who participated in the SeaPerch program (M = 11.061, SD = 1.923). The effect size as
measured by Cohen’s d = .259, indicating a negligible difference. The eta square index
indicated that 2% of the variance of MRT postassessment scores was accounted for by
whether a student participated in the SeaPerch program. Table 25 shows the distributions
for the SeaPerch students.

62
Table 25
Independent Samples t Test for Mental Rotation Test Postassessment for SeaPerch by
Gender
Group Mean SD t Df p
Female 11.06 1.92 -2.900 514 <.004*

Male 11.53 1.71
(n=516)
Regarding to what extent gender influences Mental Rotation postassessment gain
scores for students who do not participate in the SeaPerch program: an independent
samples t test was conducted to evaluate whether the mean gain scores for MRT
postassessment scores differ significantly for male and female Non-SeaPerch students.
The test was not significant, t (221) =-.567. Males who did not participate in the
SeaPerch program (M = 10.561, SD = 2.158) mean had higher MRT postassessment
scores than the females who did not participate in the SeaPerch program (M = 10.413, SD
= 1.717). The 95% confidence interval for the differences in means was quite small,
ranging from -.664 to .367. The effect size as measured by Cohen’s d = .076, indicating a
negligible difference. The eta square index indicated that no percentage of the variance of
MRT postassessment scores was accounted for by whether a student did not participate in
the SeaPerch program. Table 26 shows the data for Non-SeaPerch students.
63
Table 26
Independent Samples t Test for Mental Rotation Test Preassessment for Non-SeaPerch by
Gender
Female 10.41 1.72 -.567 221 .640

Male 10.56 2.16
(n=223)
Scores by Age and Gender
To address the research questions regarding the age and gender of the students
who did or did not participate in the SeaPerch program, it was necessary to measure the
students’ mental rotation knowledge at each level. In this study, ‘age’ represents three
school level categories, elementary (6 to 11 years old), middle (12-14 years old) and high
(15-18 years old). The mean and standard deviation for SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch
students on the MRT preassessment and postassessment scores were organized by age
and gender. As can be seen in Table 27, the preassessment means and standard
deviations for female SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch students increase as they progress in
age. The male SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch students MRT preassessment means and
standard deviations were quite similar throughout the age levels and the majority of the
MRT preassessment scores were higher than the females MRT preassessment scores.
For the MRT postassessment, however, the difference in means between SeaPerch and
Non-SeaPerch students was more pronounced. For the female and male SeaPerch
students, the mean and the standard deviation at each level increased with age while the
64
Non-SeaPerch females and males remained nearly the same as their MRT preassessment
scores.
Table 27
by Age and Gender
Age and Gender SeaPerch Non-SeaPerch
Level n M SD d p n M SD d p
Elementary 148 .862 <.001 35 .052 .815
School
Female
Preassessment 9.09 2.43 9.97 2.29
Postassessment 10.97 1.95 9.86 1.95
Middle School 30 .475 <.004 42 .089 .718
Female
Preassessment 9.57 2.83 10.45 2.43
Postassessment 10.70 1.93 10.26 1.84
High School 19 .909 <.007 32 .164 .512
Female
Preassessment 11.21 1.28 11.44 1.19
Postassessment 12.32 1.16 11.22 1.50
Elementary 175 .708 <.001 38 .029 .421

School
Male
Preassessment 10.24 2.07 9.92 2.84
Middle School 91 .439 <.001 31 .073 .669
Male
Preassessment 10.12 2.38 9.65 2.30
High School 53 .724 <.001 45 .241 .220
Male
Preassessment 11.42 1.12 11.44 1.18
Postassessment 12.25 1.18 11.69 .90
65
Significance was evident in the interaction between MRT preassessment and
postassessment scores for those that participate in the SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch
program and age (elementary, middle and high school students). On the preassessment
MRT, elementary Non-SeaPerch students had a higher mean and standard deviation (M=
9.95 SD = 2.576) than elementary SeaPerch students (M= 9.71 SD = 2.305). Figures 1
and 2 depicts that both distributions are skewed left with the mean MRT preassessment
score less than the median MRT preassessment score and centered at a MRT score of 10
points. The spread for the elementary SeaPerch students have a minimum MRT score of
1 and a maximum score of 14. The spread for the elementary Non-SeaPerch students
have a minimum MRT score of 0 and a maximum score of 15 points.
Figure 1
Elementary SeaPerch Preassessment Histogram

66
Figure 2
Elementary Non-SeaPerch Preassessment Histogram
The elementary MRT mean difference between the preassessment and
postassessment was also significant. The elementary SeaPerch students gained an
average of 1.58 point while the elementary Non-SeaPerch student loss .10 of a point on
the MRT assessment. Figures 3 and 4 depicts that both distributions for the SeaPerch and
Non-SeaPerch distributions were approximately normal with the MRT mean difference
similar to the median MRT point gain, 1.00 and 0 respectively. The elementary SeaPerch
students had a larger standard deviation (2.398) due to the larger range of score
differentials. Elementary Non-SeaPerch range of scores was one half of the elementary
SeaPerch students’ scores. Due to this lack of score variability, the elementary SeaPerch
students’ standard deviation was 1.765.

67
Figure 3
Elementary SeaPerch Mean Difference Histogram

68
Figure 4
Elementary Non-SeaPerch Mean Difference Histogram
The differential shift in scores between the elementary SeaPerch and elementary
Non-SeaPerch students is evident. In the elementary SeaPerch distribution, 63.9% of
students showed growth on the MRT assessment, 20.4% of students showed no
measurable growth, while 15.7% of students displayed a decline in MRT scores.
Conversely, 37% of elementary Non-SeaPerch students showed growth on the MRT
assessment, 23.3% showed no measurable growth, while 39.7% of students displayed a
decline in MRT scores. Elementary SeaPerch students score displayed nearly double
measurable growth than Non-SeaPerch students, concluding that participation in the
elementary SeaPerch program greatly influenced MRT scores.
Like the elementary Non-SeaPerch Preassessment MRT, middle Non-SeaPerch
students had a higher mean (10.11) than middle SeaPerch students (9.98). The middle
69
Non-SeaPerch distribution is approximately normal as the mean MRT preassessment
score (10.11) is nearly equal to the median preassessment score (10.00). The spread of
the middle Non-SeaPerch students have a minimum score of 2 points and a maximum of
13 points, with a standard deviation of 2.395. The interquartile range of both
distributions was equivalent displaying the parity of 50% of the MRT data lying within
three points. The middle SeaPerch students’ distribution is slightly skewed left with the
mean MRT preassessment score less than the medium MRT preassessment score and
centered at a MRT score of 11 points. The spread for the middle SeaPerch students have
a minimum MRT score of 0 and a maximum score of 14.
Figure 5
Middle SeaPerch Preassessment Histogram

70
Figure 6
Middle Non-SeaPerch Preassessment Histogram
The middle MRT mean difference between the pre and post assessment was also
significant for those that participate in the SeaPerch program. The middle SeaPerch
students gained an average of 1 point while the middle Non-SeaPerch student loss .04 of
a point on the MRT assessment. Figures 5 and 6 depicts that both distributions for the
SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch distributions were approximately normal with the MRT
mean difference similar to the median MRT point gain, 1.00 and 0 respectively. The
middle school SeaPerch (1.928) and Non-SeaPerch students (1.954) had similar standard
deviations although the middle SeaPerch students had a larger range. Therefore outliers,
outside of one and a half standard deviations away from the mean were present.
71
Figure 7
Middle SeaPerch Mean Difference Histograms

72
Figure 8
Middle Non-SeaPerch Mean Difference Histogram
The differential shift between the middle SeaPerch and middle Non-SeaPerch
students also are evident. Figures 7 and 8 depicts the middle school SeaPerch
distribution, 63.6% of students showed growth on the MRT assessment, 20.7% of
students showed no measurable growth, while 15.7% of students displayed a decline in
MRT scores. Conversely, 35.6% of middle Non-SeaPerch students showed growth on
the MRT assessment, 23.3% showed no measurable growth, while 41.1% of students
displayed a decline in MRT scores. Similarly like the elementary SeaPerch students, the
middle SeaPerch students score was nearly double the Non-SeaPerch students’
measurable growth, concluding that participation in the middle SeaPerch program
positively influenced MRT scores.

73
Consistently with the preassessment trends of the elementary and middle school
SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch programs, the high Non-SeaPerch preassessment MRT
scores had a slightly higher mean (11.44) than high SeaPerch students (11.36). The high
Non-SeaPerch and SeaPerch distributions are both approximately normal as the mean
MRT preassessment score is nearly equal to the median preassessment score (12.0).
Similarly, the spread of the high SeaPerch and high Non-SeaPerch students have a
minimum score of 8 points and a maximum of 14 or 15 points respectively. The standard
deviation of high SeaPerch students (1.248) was slightly larger than high Non-SeaPerch
students (1.175) due to the frequency of scores in the bottom 25% of the data.
Figure 9
High School SeaPerch Preassessment Histogram

74
Figure 10
High School Non-SeaPerch Preassessment Histogram
The high school MRT mean difference between the preassessment and
postassessment was also significant and had differential gains for students that participate
in the SeaPerch program. The high school SeaPerch students gained an average of .90 of
a point while the high school Non-SeaPerch student gained .04 of a point on the MRT
assessment. Figures 9 and 10 depicts the distributions for the SeaPerch and Non-
SeaPerch distributions were approximately normal with the MRT mean difference similar
to the median MRT point gain, 1.00 and 0 respectively. The high school Non-SeaPerch
students (1.413) had a slightly smaller standard deviation than the high school SeaPerch
(1.567) which reflects the larger range of scores.

75
Figure 11
High School SeaPerch Mean Difference Histogram

76
Figure 12
High School Non-SeaPerch Mean Difference Histogram
The differential shift between the high SeaPerch and high Non-SeaPerch students
are also evident. Figures 11 and 12 depicts the high school SeaPerch distribution, 55.5%
of students showed growth on the MRT assessment, 27.8% of students showed no
measurable growth, while 16.7% of students displayed a decline in MRT scores.
Conversely, 37.7% of high Non-SeaPerch students showed growth on the MRT
assessment, 24.7% showed no measurable growth, while 37.7% of students displayed a
decline in MRT scores. Notably, the percentage of high Non-SeaPerch MRT growth is
the same as the percentage of the decline in MRT scores for high Non-SeaPerch students.
The high school SeaPerch students scored 17.7% higher than high Non-SeaPerch
students.
77
Results of Research Question 7: MRT Preassessment and Postassessment Scores for
SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch Students by Age and Gender
The seventh question asked to what extent do age and gender influence a
differential shift in means on MRT scores for students participating and not participating
in the SeaPerch program.
A one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted for this study. The
independent variables, students’ educational level, included three levels: elementary,
middle, and high school and gender, included two levels, female and male. The
dependent variable was the SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch students’ MRT scores. The
covariate variable was the MRT preassessment scores for SeaPerch and non-SeaPerch
students. A preliminary analysis evaluating the homogeneity-of-regression (slopes)
assumptions indicated that the relationship between the covariate and the dependent
variable did not differ significantly as a function of the independent variable, gender,
F(1, 731) =.862, p = .364, partial n 2 = .001. The means of MRT scores by age adjusted
for initial differences were ordered as expected across the three age level groups. The
non-SeaPerch high school students had the largest adjusted mean differences (M = .13),
the Non-SeaPerch middle students had a smaller adjusted mean (M = -.015), and the non-
SeaPerch elementary students had the smallest adjusted mean (M = -.097).
The ANCOVA was significant as the predicted main effect of age for SeaPerch
and non-SeaPerch students F (2, 731) = .3.165, MSE = 7.751, p = .043. The means of
MRT scores by age adjusted for initial differences were ordered as expected across the
three age level groups. The SeaPerch elementary students had the largest adjusted mean
differences (M = 1.600), the SeaPerch high school students had a smaller adjusted mean
78
(M = .968), and the SeaPerch middle students had the smallest adjusted mean (M =
1.045). One percent of the total variance in SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch scores was
accounted for by the age level of the student controlling for the effect of the students’
MRT preassessment scores.
Table 28
ANCOVA of MRT Mean Scores for SeaPerch Students by Age and Gender
Source Type III Mean Eta

Sum of df Square F p Squared
Squares
Corrected Model 1672.104 7 238.872 97.523 <.001 .483
Intercept 1487.241 1 1487.241 607.185 <.001 .454
Overall Level 59.169 2 29.585 12.078 <.001 .032
Gender 2.019 1 2.019 .824 .364 .001
SeaPerch v 156.059 1 156.059 63.713 <.001 .080
Non-SeaPerch
Overall Level* 15.502 2 7.751 3.165 .043 .009
SeaPerch v
Non-SeaPerch
Preassessment 1323.258 1 1323.258 540.237 <.001 .425
Error 1790.513 731 2.449
Total 4105.000 739
Corrected Total 3462.617 738
Conclusion
Data presented in this chapter presented findings indicate that participating in the
SeaPerch program influences an increase in Mental Rotation scores. Preassessment
scores between SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch were similar at all three age levels,
elementary, middle, and high school. Furthermore, the Non-SeaPerch preassessment
scores were slightly higher. The postassessment scores on the MRT results demonstrated
significant differences between students who participated in the SeaPerch program and
79
students enrolled in a school that offers the SeaPerch program but did not participate in
the program. There was a significant differential shift in MRT scores with SeaPerch and
Non-SeaPerch participant that can be inferred by the data. The MRT gains in the
SeaPerch program were at least 20% higher than MRT gains in the Non-SeaPerch
program at all levels.

Chapter V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
Chapter four presented data from the study. This chapter discusses the results
presented in this statistical analysis. This researcher identifies possible theoretical,
scientific, and educational rationale for these findings and discusses the implications and
significance at the K-12 education level. Uses for the data are explored in the areas of
spatial ability, experience, and factors such as age and gender. Limitations of the study
and recommendations for future research will be discussed. Insights into how results
from this study confirm or contradict findings from other studies will be reviewed. The
chapter will conclude with possible considerations for future SeaPerch research.
The purpose of this study was to measure the relationship of mental rotation
ability in the SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch students, and the connection to student gender
and age. This quantitative study explored (a) whether a significance existed between
SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch students with regard to MRT scores, (b) whether the
relationship of the MRT scores and students’ experience participating or not-participating
in the SeaPerch program was evident in the preassessment and postassessment data, and
(c) to what extent gender/age influence scores on the MRT from SeaPerch and Non-
SeaPerch students.
This chapter reviews the purpose and significance of this study as this researcher
attempted to find the relationship between the influence of participating in the SeaPerch
80
81
program and the students’ mental rotation ability. This chapter presents: (a) summary
and interpretation of the findings (b) recommendations, (c) limitations of the study, and
(d) suggestions for future research.
Summary and Interpretation of the Findings
MRT Results
The first part of the study analyzed differences in students’ Mental Rotation
scores. Specifically, it was designed to answer the question of MRT score differences
between students that participated in the SeaPerch program and similar students that were
enrolled at a school that offered the SeaPerch program, but did not participate in the
program. Statistical findings indicated that there were significant differences for the
preassessment (F= 7.80, p < .01) and postassessment (F= 33.83, p < .01) in scores of
SeaPerch students.
Students in the SeaPerch program scored nearly the same on the MRT
preassessment as Non-SeaPerch students. This result is reasonable considering that
SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch students have experienced relatively the same mathematics
curriculum and like environments. The MRT preassessment has a small practical
significance (d=.241) for SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch students while the MRT
postassessment had a moderate effect size (d=.457). Students’ scores on the MRT
postassessment in the SeaPerch program increased significantly more than those of the
Non-SeaPerch program. Overall, students in the SeaPerch program increased
achievement of MRT scores by 1.347; however, students in the Non-SeaPerch program,
decreased in performance of MRT by -.027.

82
There is evidence that spatial relevant experience training, such as participating in
the SeaPerch program, enhances spatial performance (Baenninger & Newcombe, 1989;
Marulis, Liu, Warren, Uttal & Newcombe, 2007). Practice effects on spatial tasks can
lead to improvement within like groups (Kail, 1986).
Influence of Age on MRT scores
The second part of the study analyzed how school level age (elementary, middle
and high school) influenced students’ Mental Rotation scores between students that
participated in the SeaPerch program and similar students who were enrolled at a school
that offered the SeaPerch program, but did not participate in the program. Statistical
findings indicated that at all three levels, elementary, middle, and high school students,
were affected by the SeaPerch spatial experience programs. There were significant
differences in mean MRT scores for the elementary (1.576), middle (1.000), and high
school (.903) SeaPerch students.
Students not participating in the SeaPerch program scored higher than SeaPerch
students on the MRT preassessment at every age. However, Non-SeaPerch students’
postassessment MRT scores appeared to be consistent with their preassessment scores.
There were not significant differences in mean MRT scores for elementary (-.096),
middle (-.041) and high (.052) Non-SeaPerch students.
There was little practical significance denoted by Cohen’s d for Non-SeaPerch
students. There was evidence of large effect size at the elementary and high SeaPerch
students MRT scores, and medium practical significance with the middle school
SeaPerch students. It should be noted that the elementary SeaPerch students’ MRT
postassessment scores were higher than the middle SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch students’
scores.
83
Piaget hypothesized that mental rotation was not possible until the age of 7 to 8
years (Piaget & Inhelder, 1966, 1971). Yet research by Marmor (1975, 1977) suggested a
much earlier onset of mental rotation, at the age of 4 to 5 years (Newcombe, 2003).
Young children’s level of block play, which has a high level of spatial and mental
rotation, correlates with their later achievement on mental rotation tasks (Wolfgang,
Stannard, & Jones, 2003). Benbow (1988) reported adolescent success at mental rotation
correlated with mathematical ability. O’Boyle (2005) stressed the importance of
identifying children who are gifted in mathematics, and the need to develop their mental
rotation ability to its full potential.
Influence of Gender on MRT scores
The third part of the study analyzed how gender influenced students’ Mental
Rotation scores between students who participated in the SeaPerch program and similar
students who were enrolled at a school that offered the SeaPerch program, but did not
participate in the program. Statistical findings indicate that at all males and females were
affected by the SeaPerch spatial experience programs. There were significant differences
in mean MRT scores for the SeaPerch students (.564).
Although female students not participating in the SeaPerch program scored higher
than female SeaPerch students on the MRT preassessment, the female SeaPerch students
showed the largest MRT growth and practical significance (d=.767) in gender for
SeaPerch and Non-SeaPerch students.
Both male and female Non-SeaPerch students’ postassessment MRT scores
appeared to be very consistent with their preassessment scores. There were no significant
differences (t (221) = -1.258, p = .210) in mean MRT scores for Non-SeaPerch students.
Consistent with research, male SeaPerch students’ base MRT preassessment was higher
84
than female SeaPerch students and both male and female Non-SeaPerch students. Linn &
Petersen (1985) reported how using mental rotation tasks to represent spatial ability,
males show a consistent and substantial advantage over females.
The gender differences found in this study are consistent with past research in
demonstrating a male advantage on tests of mental rotation ability (Cherney & Collaer,
2005; Linn & Petersen, 1985; Peters et al., 1995; Voyer et al., 2000). Several studies
have found evidence that procedural factors affect the magnitude of gender differences on
the MRT (Scali et al., 2000; Stumpf, 1998; Voyer, 1997). Many gender studies indicate
that males play more computer games (Peters et al., 1995), engage in more manipulative
toy play (Caldera et al., 1999) and participate in sports (Glamser & Turner, 1995; Voyer
et al, 2000) more often than females.
Influence of Age and Gender on MRT scores
The last part of the study analyzed how age and gender influenced students’
Mental Rotation scores between students who participated in the SeaPerch program and
similar students who were enrolled at a school that offered the SeaPerch program, but did
not participate in the program. An analysis of covariance indicated significance on the
predicted main effect of age for SeaPerch students. Gender MRT scores were not
considered a main effect for SeaPerch students (p=. 364), albeit the practical significance
for elementary and high scores also was higher for males and females.
The ANCOVA analysis was performed on non-SeaPerch students and analysis
concluded no significant differences on the predicted main effect on age or gender. Non-
SeaPerch males in high school had the largest mean difference (.25) and practical
significance (.241).
85
With a detailed meta-analysis of the studies of cognitive sex differences,
Rosenthal and Rubin (1982) concluded that, although the magnitude of such differences
have declined in recent years, gender differences in cognitive functioning are still
nontrivial and of real practical importance. The few nonhuman species for which there
are comparative data suggest the generality of this phenomenon: among both wild and
laboratory rodents males perform significantly better than females on spatial tasks. This
might explain the original significance but not the interactions.
After a detailed meta-analysis, Else-Quest, Hyde and Linn (2010) showed that
girls will perform at the same level as the boys when they are given the right educational
tools and have visible female role models in mathematics. Gender differences in
mathematics do not just begin in adolescence, but much earlier in the primary grades due
to learning styles and social preferences (Terry, 2005). Teachers need to differentiate
their instruction so both boys’ and girls’ achievement is maximized (Fennema &
Carpenter, 1998). Educational theory and instruction has focused on Piaget’s
constructivist approach, which permits students to interact directly with materials to make
meaning from learning experiences (Terry, 2005; On Purpose Associates, 1998).
Suggestions for Future Research
The findings of this study invite additional research on the topic. Several
different replications of the study would be advisable. For comparison purposes, it would
be particularly informative to investigate the students’ prior level of experience with
spatial activities. However, more research is needed to identify what activities and
training can improve mental rotation and spatial abilities, especially activities that can be
implemented in the classroom. Understanding connections between the brain and

86
learning will help educators develop and assess strategies for classroom practice.
Knowing the stages of brain development might help instructors better understand their
students (Garroway, 2011). Currently, geometry curricula do not provide enough
opportunities for the development of spatial abilities (Olkum, 2003; Usiskin, 1987),
probably because most teachers are unsure what activities at what ages would be
beneficial for this development.
Another study related to the MRT assessment issue would be to determine the
influence of socio-economic environment on mental rotation development. During the
past two decades, there has been a concerted effort to find out why there is a shortage of
women and minorities in the science, math, engineering, and technical fields (AAUW,
1992). Research supports that males outperform females on spatial skills tasks such as
mental rotation providing a stronger mathematical background (Voyer, Voyer & Bryden,
1995). Research has found relationships between level of experience with spatial-type
activities and mental rotation performance (Baenninger & Newcombe, 1989; Casey, et al,
1994; Voyer at al., 2000) so it is necessary for all students, regardless of their
background, to experience spatial activities at an early age.
Many researchers have explored spatial abilities, but to the knowledge of this
researcher, none have investigated the connection of students’ mental rotation ability and
spatial 3-D training through the SeaPerch program. Previous studies have shown that
when students experience 3-D spatial activities, regardless of gender, their potential
connections to mathematics increase (Tracey, 1987). However, there is little research
that provides data on effective instructional strategies for helping students mentally rotate
3-D objects. Educators have addressed geometric concepts in mathematics classes, but
87
little curriculum development has included the development of spatial ability through
rotating objects in three dimensions.
Conclusion
Vandenberg and Kuse (1978) provided an ecologically valid analysis of spatial
abilities by investigating mental rotation of three-dimensional objects, which has been
replicated, and is now considered the standard task for measuring mental rotation.
Research supported task difficulty (i.e. 3-D objects vs. 2-D letters) correlated with
increased cortical activation in the parietal cortex (Peters, 1995).
The pre-teen and early adolescent time periods are crucial developmentally as
students become more skillful at performing mental rotations (Waber, Carlson & Mann,
1982). The male advantage on spatial ability tasks has been widely documented for at
least 30 years and this gender gap does not appear to be narrowing (Linn & Petersen,
1985). Determining the ultimate cause of gender differences in mental rotation ability is
not as important as determining whether individual performance can be enhanced.
Part of the explanation can be traced to gender differences in cognitive abilities
(Hedges & Nowell, 1995) while some argue that the gender gap in mathematics is
biologically driven (Berenbaum, Korman, & Leveroni, 1995) stating that prenatal
hormones circulating in the brain encourage differential development in the hemispheres
of male and female fetuses. Others believe intelligence has its roots in genetics (Plomin,
2000). There is evidence, however, that societal expectations factors may influence girls’
attitudes toward math and science (Andre, Whigham, Hendrickson, & Chambers, 1999).
It is essential to provide students with the learning experiences to become flexible
thinkers with agile minds who can adapt to and resolve problems. This researcher
88
believes that learning is hierarchical and is best achieved within an optimal time frame
and that skill development cannot be omitted or delayed without having a significant
influence on later learning. Research has found that students who develop their spatial
abilities are more apt to use alternative strategies, thereby improving their overall
mathematical skills (De Lisi & McGillicuddy-De Lisi, 2002; Newcombe, Mathason, &
Terlecki, 2002). Placing an emphasis on why educators need to develop spatial ability in
students may create a paradigm in how and what students learn and connect. While this
research will not directly increase the numbers of students going into STEM careers, it
may lead to factors that could help all students make more confident, informed choices,
and also guide future research toward factors that could help infuse spatial experience
within the curricula.

89
References
Adler, P.A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S.
Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research. California: Sage Publications,
Inc.
American association of university women. (1992). Retrieved from
http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/whysofew_execsummary.pdf
American Psychological Association (2010, January 6). Few gender differences in math
abilities, worldwide study finds. Science Daily. Retrieved April 29, 2011, from
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100105112303.htm
Andre, T., Whigham, M., Hendrickson, A., & Chambers, S. (1999). Competency
beliefs, positive affect, and gender stereotypes of elementary students and their
parents about science versus other school subjects. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 36, 719-747.
Anglin, L., Pirson, M., & Langer, E. (2008). Mindful learning: A moderator of gender
differences in mathematics performance. Journal of Adult Development, 15(3-4),
132-139. doi: 10.1007/s10804-008-9043-x
Assel, M.A., Landry, S.H., Swank, P., Smith, K. E., & Steelman, L. M. (2003). Precursors
to mathematical skills: Examining the roles of visual-spatial skills, executive
processes, and parenting factors. Applied Developmental Science, 7(1), 27-38.
Ayers, M. (1999). Locke. New York, New York: Routledge.
Baenninger, M & Newcombe, N. (1989). The role of experience in spatial test performance:
A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 20, 327-344.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.

90
Barton, A.; Calabrese, E. (2008). Creating hybrid spaces for engaging school science among
urban middle school girls. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 68-103.
Battista, M. T. (1990). Spatial visualization and gender differences in high school
geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 47-60.
Becker JR. (1981). Differential treatment of females and males in mathematics classes.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12, 40–53.
Benbow, C. P. (1988). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in intellectually
talented preadolescents. Brain and Behavioural Sciences, 11, 169-232.
Berenbaum, S. A., Korman, K., and Leveroni, C. (1995). Early hormones and sex
differences in cognitive abilities. Learn. Indiv. Diffs. 7, 303–321.
Birenbaum, M., Kelly, A., & Levi-Keren, M. (1994). Stimulus features and sex differences
in mental rotation test performance. Intelligence, 19(1), 51-64.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Bogue, B., & Marra, R. (2003). Visual Spatial Skills. AWE Research Overview Suite.
Blazhenkova, O., Kozhevnikov, M., & Becker, M. (2011). Object-Spatial Imagery and
Verbal cognitive styles in children and adolescences. Learning and Individual
Differences, 21 (3), 281-287.
Blume, L & Zembar, L. (2009). Middle Childhood Development: A Contextual
Approach, p. 212-215. Allyn and Bacon.
Byrnes, J. P. (2003). Factors predictive of mathematics achievement in White, Black, and
Hispanic 12th graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 316-326.
Caldas, S. J., & Bankston III, C. (1997). Effect of school population socioeconomic status
91
on individual academic achievement. The Journal of Educational Research,
90(5), 269-277.
Caldera, Y. M., Culp, A. M., O'Brien, M., Truglio, R. T., Alvarez, M., & Huston, A. C.
(1999). Children's play preferences, construction play with blocks, and visual
spatial skills: Are they related? International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 23(4), 855-872.
Caine, R. & Caine, G (1991). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain.
Parsippany, NJ: Dale Seymour Publications.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Casey, M. B., Nuttall, R. L., Pezaris, E., Harwood, E. A., & Benbow, C. P. (1994,
February). The impact of mental rotation ability on math aptitude: A comparison
of males and females across diverse samples. Paper presented at the 22nd annual
meeting of the International Neuropsychological Society, Cincinnati, OH.
Casey, M. B., Nuttall, R. L., & Pezaris, E. (2001). Spatial-mechanical reasoning skills
versus mathematics self-confidence as mediators of gender differences on
mathematics subtests using cross-national gender- based items. Journal for Research
in Mathematics, 32(1), 28-57.
Casey, M., Colon, D. & Goris, Y. (1992). Family Handedness as a Predictor of Mental
Rotation Ability among Minority Girls in a Math-Science Training Program. Brain
and Cognition, 18, 88-96).

92
Casey, M. B., Pezaris, E., & Nuttall, R. L. (2008). Spatial ability as a predictor of math
achievement: The importance of sex and handedness patterns. Neuropsychologia,
30(1), 35-45.
Ceci, S., Williams, W., & Barnett, S. (2009). Women’s Underrepresentation in Science:
Sociocultural and Biological Considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 218–
261.
Choi, J., & Silverman, I. (2003). Processes underlying sex differences in route-learning
strategies in children and adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences,
34(7), 1153-1166.
Clements, D. (1999). Concrete manipulatives, concrete ideas. Contemporary Issues in Early
Childhood, 1(1), 45-60.
Cohen, S. L., & Cohen, R. (1985). The role of activity in spatial cognition. In R. Cohen
(Ed.) The development of spatial cognition (199-223). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conley, M. (Spring 2008). Cognitive strategy instruction for adolescents: What we know
about the promise, what we don't know about the potential. Harvard Educational
Review, 78(1), 84-96.
Cook, D., & Campbell, T. (1979). Quasi experimentation: Design and analysis issues for
field settings.. (pp. 1-36). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Crisp, G., Nora, A., & Taggart, A. (2009). Student Characteristics, Pre-College, College,
and Environmental Factors as Predictors of Majoring in and Earning a STEM
Degree: An Analysis of Students Attending a Hispanic Serving Institution.
Educational Research Journal, 46(4).

93
Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A., & Greenwald, A. (2011). Math-gender stereotypes in elementary
school children. Child development, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01529.x
D'Arcangelo, M. (2006). The brains behind the brain. How the Brain Learns, 56(3), 20-25.
Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
DeGarmo, D.S., Forgatch, M.S., & Martinez, C.R. (1999). Parenting of divorced mothers as
a link between social status and boys academic outcomes: Unpacking the effects of
socioeconomic status. Child Development, 70(5), 1231-1245.
Diamond, M., & Scheibel, A. (1985). The human brain coloring book. (1 ed.).
New York: Collins.
Dueax, K. (1985). Sex and Gender. Annual Review of Psychology. 36, 49-81
Ebbeck, M. (1984). Equity for boys and girls: Some important issues. Early Child
Development and Care, 18, 119-31.
Edwards, J.R., & Bagozzi, R.P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between
constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5(2), 399-409.
Eldred, C. (1973). Judgments of right side up and figure rotation by young children. Child
Development, 44(2), 395-399.
Ellis, A., & Fouts, J.T. (1993). Research on educational innovations. Princeton Junction:
NJ: Eye on Education.
Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-National Patterns of Gender
Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1),
103-127.
94
Emerick, L.J. (1992). Academic underachievement among the gifted: Students' perceptions
of factors that reverse the pattern. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(3), 140-146.
Fancher, R. E. (1985). The intelligence men: Makers of the IQ controversy. New York:
W. W. Norton & Company
Feingold, A. (1988). Cognitive gender differences are disappearing. . American
Psychological, 43, 95-103.
Feng, J, Spence, I, & Pratt, J. (2007). Playing an action video game reduces gender
differences in spatial cognition. PSCI, 18, 850-856.
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1977). Sex-related differences in mathematics achievement,
spatial visualization, and affective factors. American Educational Research
Journal, 14(1), 51-71.
Fennema, E. & Tartre, L. (1985). The Use of Spatial Visualization in Mathematics by
Boys and Girls. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(3), 184-206.
Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted black students:
Promising practices and programs. New York: Teachers College Press.
Franke, M.L., & Levi, L.W. (1998). A longitudinal study of gender differences in young
children's mathematical thinking. Educational Researcher, 27(5), 6-11.
Garroway, M. (2011). The relationship between locus of control and brain research-
compatible instructional strategies: Helping first-year community college
students successfully transition. (Doctoral dissertation), Available from ProQuest,
LLC. (UMI No. 3459856).
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons in Theory and Practice. Basic
Books.
95
Gaulin, S., & Fitzgerald, R. (1986). Sex differences in spatial ability: An evoluntionary
hypothesis and test. The American Naturalist, 127(1), 74-88.
Geary, D.C. (1994). Children’s Mathematical Development: Research and
Practical Applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Glasmer, F. D., & Turner, R. W. (1995). Youth sport participation and associated sex
differences on a measure of spatial ability. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81, 1099-
1105.
Gohm, C. L., Humphreys, L. G., & Yao, G. (1998). Underachievement among spatially
gifted students. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 515–531.
Gopnik, A. (2000). The scientist in the crib: What early learning tells us about the mind.
William Morrow Paperbacks.
Green, V. A., Bigler, R. S., & Catherwood, D. (2004). The variability and flexibility of
gender-typed toy play: a close look at children's behavioral responses to
counterstereotypic models. Sex Roles, 51(7-8), 371-386.
Grimshaw, G. M., Sitarenios, G., & Fingant, J. K. (1995). Mental rotation at 7 years:
Relations with prenatal testosterone levels and spatial play experiences. Brain and
Cognition, 29(1), 85-100.
Grimshaw, G. M., Bryden, M. P., and Finegan, J. A. K. (1995). Relations between
prenatal testosterone and cerebral lateralization in children. Neuropsychology, 9,
68-79.
Grootenboer , P., & Hemmings, B. (2007). Mathematics Performance and the Role
Played by effective and Background Factors. Mathematics Education Research
Journal, 19(3), 3- 20.

96
Guba, Egon G. and Yvonna S. Lincoln (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative
research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna
S. Lincoln, 105-117. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hahn, N., Jansen, P., & Heil, M. (2009). Preschoolers’ mental rotation: sex differences in
hemispheric asymmetry. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(6), 1244-1250.
Hale-Benson, J. (1986). Black children: Their roots, culture, and learning styles (2nd ed.).
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Halpern, D. (2007). The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics.
Association for Psychological Science, 8(1).
Halpern, D. F. (1992) Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Haier R., Jung R. E., Yeo R. A., Head K., Alkire M. T. (2007) Structural brain variation and
general intelligence. NeuroImage, 2004:23: 425–33.
Haig, D. (2002). Genomic imprinting and kinship. (p. 238). Rutgers: Rutgers University
Press.
Hampden-Thompson, G. (2012). Under the same roof: An international comparison of
multigenerational families and children’s mathematics achievement. International
Journal of Sociology Of The Family, 38(1): 39-61.
Hanson, R.A. (1975). Consistency and stability of home environmental measures related
to IQ. Child Development, 46, 470-480.
Harris, I, Egan, G, Sonkkila, C, Tochon, H, Paxinos, G, & Watson, J (2000). Selective
right parietal lobe activation during mental rotation: A parametric PET study.
Brain, 123, 65-73.

97
Haydel, S. (2009). The effects of gender and athletic experience on spatial ability test
scores. Informally published manuscript, Loyola University: Department of
Psychology.
Hegarty, M, & Kozhevnikov, M (1999). Types of visual-spatial representations and
mathematical problem solving, Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 684-689.
Heil, M, & Jansen-Osmann, P (2008). Gender differences in math and mental rotation
accuracy but not in mental speed in 8 year old children. European Journal of
Developmental Science, 2, 1-18.
Hembree, R. (1990). The nature, effects, and relieve of mathematics anxiety. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education,21, 33-46.
Hertburg-Davis, H; Brighton. (2006). Support and sabotage principals' influence on middle
school teachers' responses to differentiation. The Journal of Secondary Gifted
Education, 17(2), 90-104.
Higgins, H. (2006). The Relationship of Sixth-Grade Students’ Mental Rotation Ability to
Spatial Experience and Problem-Solving Strategies by Socioeconomic Status and
Gender. University of Nevada, Reno.
Hogan, D., & Tudge, J. (1999). Implications of Vygotsky’s theory for peer learning. In A.
M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning
(pp. 39-65). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Holliday-Darr, K., Blasko, D., & Dwyer, C. (2000). Improving cognitive visualization
with a web based interactive assessment and training program. Engineering
Design Graphics Journal, 64(1), 4-9.

98
Humphreys, L. G., Lubinski, D., & Yao, G. (1993). Utility of predicting group
membership and the role of spatial visualization in becoming an engineer,
physical scientist, or artist. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 250–261.
Huttenlocher, J. & Newcombe, N. S. (2000). Making space: The development of spatial
representation and reasoning. MIT Press.
Hyde, J., & Mertz, J. (2009). Gender, culture, and mathematics performance. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Science, 106(22), 8801-8807. doi:
10.1073 pnas.0901265106 PNAS
Ivanovic, D., Leiva, B., & Perez H. (2004). Head size and intelligence, learning, nutritional
status and brain development: Head, intelligence quotient, learning, nutrition and
brain. Neuropsychological, 42, 1118-1131.
Jacklin, C.N., Maccoby, E.E., & Dick, A.E. (1973). Barrier behavior and toy
preferences: Sex differences (and their absence) in the year-old child.
Child Development, 44, 196– 200.
Jackson, M.A. (August 2006). Are success learning experiences and self-efficacy beliefs
association with occupational interests and aspirations of at risk urban youth?
Journal of Career Assessment, 14(3), 333-353.
James, A. (2007). Gender differences and the teaching of mathematics. Inquiry, 12(1),
14-25.
Jansen-Osmann, P. & Heil, M. (2006). Violation of pure insertion during mental rotation is
independent of stimulus type, task, and subjects’ age. Acta Psychologica, 122,
280-287.
Jansen-Osmann, P. & Heil, M. (2007). Development aspects of the parietal laterality of
ERP effects during mental rotation. NeuroReport, 18, 175-178

99
Jensen, E. (2008). Brain based-learning: The new paradigm of teaching (revised 2008).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Jensen E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA:ASCD.
Jensen, E. (2000). Brain based learning (Rev. Ed.). San Diego, CA: The Brain Store.
(Original work published 1995)
Johnson, E. S., & Meade, A. C. (1987). Developmental patterns of spatial ability: An
early sex difference. Child Development, 58, 725-740.
Johnston, B. (2005). Excitotoxicity in Perinatal Brain Injury. Brain Pathology, 15(3),
Jones, T. (2010). The relationship between kindergarten students' home block play and
their spatial ability test scores. ProQuest LLC, Ed.D. Dissertation, University of
Houston
Joseph, R. (1979). Effects of reading environment and sex on maze learning, memory,
and competitive exploration. Journal of Psychology, 101, 37-43.
Joseph, R. (2000). Right parietal lobe. Academic Press: New York, NY.
Joseph, R. (2011). The Split Brain: Two Brains - Two Minds "The Universe and
Consciousness", Edited by Sir Roger Penrose, FRS, Ph.D., & Stuart Hameroff,
Ph.D. Science Publishers, Cambridge, MA.
Kail, R., Pellegrino, J. & Carter, P. (1980) Developmental changes in mental rotation.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 29, 102-116.
Katz, S. (2001). Appraisal of self-efficacy. Elsevier Science, April, 210-214.
Kerns, K.A., & Berenbaum, S.A. (1991). Sex differences in spatial ability in children.
Behavior Genetics, 21, 383-396.

100
Kimura, D., & Hampson, E. (1994). Cognitive patterns in men and women is influenced
by fluctuations in sex hormones. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
3(2), 57-61.
Koscik, T, O'Leary, D, Moser, D, Andreasen, N, & Nopoulos, P (2009). Sex differences in
parietal lobe morphology: Relationship to mental rotation performance. Brain and
Cognition. 69, 451-459.
Koscik, T, O’Leary, D. Moser, Andreasen N, & Nopoulos, P. (2009). Sex differences in
spatial ability in children. Behavior Genetics. 21, 383-396.
Khamis, V; Sukmak. (July 2008). Factors affecting the motivation to learn among united
arab emirates middle and high school students. Educational Studies, 34(2), 191-200.
Lawton, C. (2000). Gender differences in way-finding strategies: Relationship to spatial
ability and spatial anxiety. Sex roles, 43(11-12), 891-915. doi:
10.1023/A:1011041006679
Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, J., Taylor, A., & Langtock, A. (1999). Early sex differences in
spatial skill. Developmental Psychology, 35, 940-949.
Levin, S, Mohamed, F, & Platek, S (2005). Common ground for spatial cognition? A
behavioral and fMRI study of sex differences in mental rotation and spatial working
memory. Evolutionary Psychology, 3, 227-254.
Linn, M, & Peterson, A. (1985). Emergence and characteristics of sex, differences in spatial
ability: A meta-analysis. Society of Research in Child Development, 56, 1479-1498.
Locke, J. (1960). John Locke. (1st ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Macmillan.
Lubinski, D. (2010). Spatial ability and STEM: A sleeping giant for talent identification and
development. Personality and Individual Differences, 49 (2010) 344–351.

101
Lundgren, EM; Cnattingius, S; Jonsson, B. (2001). Intellectual and psychological
performance in males born small for gestation age with and without catch-up
growth. Pediatrics Research, 50, 91-96.
Lynch, G. (1998). Memory and the brain: Unexpected chemistries and a new pharmacology.
Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 70, 82-100.
Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1991). Parents' differential socialization of boys and
girls: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 267-296.
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Malzahn, K.A. (2002). Status of elementary school mathematics teaching. Retrieved April 13,
2006 from http://2000survey.horizon-research.com/reports/elem_math/elem_math.pdf.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved 2011, from http://web.mit.edu
Masters, M., & Sanders, B. (1993). Is the gender difference in mental rotation
disappearing? Behavior Genetics, 23(4), 337-341.
Matascusa, E., Snyder, W., & Hoyt, B. (2011). Effective Instruction for STEM Disciplines:
From Learning Theory to College Teaching. (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
McGee, M. G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and
environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological
Bulletin, 86(5), 889-918.
McLeod, S. A. (2007). Simply Psychology - Psychology Articles for Students.
Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/

102
Montello, D. R., Gottsegen, J., & Goodchild, M. (1999). A comprehensive model of
uncertainty in spatial data. In K. Lowell & A. Jaton (Eds.), Spatial accuracy
assessment: Land information uncertainty in natural resources (pp. 175-181).
Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press.
Nasir, N. (2008). Cultural and mathematics in school: boundaries between "cultural" and
"domain" knowledge in the mathematics classroom and beyond. Review of Research
in Education, 32, 187-240.
National Council Teachers of Mathematics (2011). Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org
National Research Council. (2006). Helping children learn mathematics. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Science Foundation (2002). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov
Newcombe, N.S. (2010). On tending to our scientific knitting: Thinking about gender in
the context of evolution. In J. Chrisler & D. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of
gender research in psychology (pp. 259-274). Springer.
Newcombe, N. (2003). Some controls control too much. Child Development, 74(4),
1050-1052. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00588
Newcombe, N., Bandura, M., & Taylor, D.G. (1983) Sex differences in spatial ability
and spatial activities. Sex Roles, 9, 377-386.
Newcombe, N, & Dubas, J (1992). A longitudal study of predictors of spatial ability in
adolescent females. Child Development, 63, 37-46.
Newcombe, N. S., Mathason, L. & Terlecki, M. (2002). Maximization of spatial
competence: More important than finding the cause of sex differences. In A.
McGillicuddy-De Lisi & R. De Lisi (Eds.), Biology, society and behavior: The
103
development of sex differences in cognition (pp. 183-206). Westport, CT: Ablex
Publishing.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (1997). At Risk Children and Youth. (Web
site available at http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/at0cont.htm on April 11, 2009).
Olkum, S. (2003). Making connections: Improving spatial abilities with engineering
drawing activities. International Journal of Mathematics Teaching and Learning,
(April).
On Purpose Associates. (1998). About Learning. Funderstanding. Retrieved May 16,
2007 from http://www.funderstanding.com/about_learning.cfm
O'Boyle, M. (2005). Some current findings on brain characteristics of the mathematically
gifted adolescent. International Education Journal, 6(2), 247-251.
Pandiscio, Eric A. (1994). The justification of geometry in the American high school
curriculum: an historical overview, 1930-1990. In Curriculum History, edited by
Lynn Burlbaw. Society for the Study of Curriculum History. College Station,
Texas.
Papic, M., & Mulligan, J. (2005). Preschoolers’ mathematical patterning. The Proceedings
of the 28th Mathematical Education Research Group of Australasia Conference,
609-616.
Peters, M., Chisholm, P., & Laeng, B. (1995). Spatial ability, student gender, and academic
performance. Journal of Engineering Education, January, 1-5.
Peters, M. (1995). Revised Vandenberg & Kuse mental rotations tests: Forms mrt-a to
mrt-d. Guelph, Canada: Technical Report, Department of Psychology, University
of Guelph.
Peters, M. (2005) Sex differences and the factor of time in solving Vandenberg and Kuse
104
mental rotation problems. Brain and Cognition, 57, 176-184.
Piaget, J. and B. Inhelder (1967). A Child's Conception of Space (F. J. Langdon & J. L.
Lunzer, Trans.). New York: Norton (Original work published 1948)
Pinker, & Spelke (2007). The Science of Gender and Science: Pinker vs. Spelke. A
Debate. The Edge: The Third Culture, 19(1), 17.
Pinker, S. (2002). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York,
NY: Penguin Publishing.
Pomrenke, Marlene (September 2007). Using grounded theory to understand resiliency in
pre-teen children of high conflict families. The Qualitative Report, 12(3), 356-374.
Purves (2007). Principles of Cognitive Neuroscience. Principles of Cognitive
Neuroscience.
Quaiser-Pohl, C., & Lehmann, W. (2002). Girls' spatial abilities: Charting the
contributions of experiences and attitudes in different academic groups. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 245-260.
Random House Webster's College Dictionary, retrieved 2010,
http://www.randomhouse.com/features/rhwebsters/
Richardson, J. T. (1994). Gender differences in mental rotation. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 78(2), 435-448.
Ridge, Damien, Sheehan, Margaret. (2003). Being there: How teachers of students facing
adversity promote positive relationships. Qualitative Research Journal, 3(2),
3-21.
Rietveld, M, VanBaal, G, Dolan, C, & Boomsma, D (2000). Genetic factor analyses of
specific cognitive abilities in 5-year old dutch children. Behavior Genetics, 30, 29-
40.
105
Rilea, S. (2008). A lateralization of function approach to sex differences in spatial ability: A
reexamination. Brain Cognition, 67(2):168-82..
Roberts, J., & Bell, M. (2010). Sex Differences on a Mental Rotation Task: Variations in
Electroencephalogram Hemispheric Activation Between Children and College
Students. Developmental Neuropsychology, 199-223.
Roberts, J (1999). Sex difference on a mental rotation task: Variations in hemispheric
activation between children and college students. Blacksburg, VA: University
Libraries.
Robinson, J., & Lubienski, S. (2010). The development of gender achievement gaps in
mathematics and reading during elementary and middle school: Examining direct
cognitive assessments and teacher ratings. American educational research journal,
48(2), 268. doi: 10.3102/0002831210372249
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). Further meta-analytic procedures for assessing
cognitive gender differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 708-712.
Ross, J.A. (November 1995). Effects of feedback on student behavior in cooperative
learning groups in grade 7 math class. The Elementary School Journal, 96(2), 125-
143.
Sanders, B., & Soares, M. P. (1986). Sexual maturation and spatial ability in college
students. Developmental Psychology, 22, 199-203.
Salthouse, T. (1987). The role of representations in age differences in analogical
reasoning. Psychology and aging, 2(4), 357-362.
Scali, R., Brownlow, S., & Hicks, J. (2000). Gender Differences in Spatial Task
Performance as a Function of Speed or Accuracy Orientation. Behavioral Science,
43(5) 1-443.
106
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive skill learning. In R. Ames and C. Ames
(Eds.), Research on Motivation in Education (Vol. 3): Goals and Cognitions (pp. 13-
43). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Secada, W.G. (1992). Race, ethnicity, social class, language, and achievement in
mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics
teaching and learning (pp.623-660).
Serbin, L., Zelkowitz, P., Doyle, A., & Gold, D. (1990). The socialization of sex-
differentiated skills and academic performance. Sex Roles, (23), 613-628.
Serbin, L. A., & Connor, J. M. (1979). Sex typing of children's play preference
and patterns of cognitive performance. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 134(2),
315-316.
Signorella, M. L., & Jamison, W. (1986). Masculinity, femininity, androgyny, and
cognitive performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 100(2), 207-228.
Silverman, I., Choi, J., & Peters, M. (2007). The hunter-gatherer theory of sex differences in
spatial abilities: Data from 40 countries. Archives Sex Behavior, 2007(36), 261-268.
doi: 10.1007s10508-006-9168-6
Sinha, Vandna. (2005). A multidimensional approach to understanding neighborhood
schools and their potential impact. Urban Education, 40(6), 627-662.
Smith, I. M. (1964). Spatial ability: Its educational and social significance. London:
University of London Press.
Sorby, S. A., Leopold, C., & Górska, R. (1999). Cross-cultural comparisons of gender
differences in the spatial skills of engineering students. Journal of Women and
Minorities in Science and Engineering, 5(3), 279-291

107
Sowder, J. (2007). The Mathematical Education and Development of Teachers. Second
Handbook of Research in Mathematics Education.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Super, D. E., & Bachrach, P. B. (1957). Scientific careers and vocational development
theory. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Stumpf, H. (1998). Gender-related differences in academically talented students' scores
and use of time on tests of spatial ability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(3), 157-171.
Terry, M. (2005). An evaluation of a high school algebra program. Valdosta State
University.
Thomas, S., Sammons, P., Mortimore, P., & Smees, R. (1997). Differential secondary
school effectiveness: Comparing the performance of different pupil groups.
British Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 451-469.
Toptas, V., Celik, S., & Karaca, E. T. (2012). Improving 8TH Grades Spatial
Thinking Abilities Through a 3D Modeling Program. The Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 128-132.
Tough, A. (1979). Adult learning projects [A fresh approach to theory in adult learning].
Toronto, Ontario: Pfeiffer and Company.
Tracy, D. M. (1990). Toy-playing behavior, sexrole orientation, spatial ability, and
science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(7), 637-649.
Trudeau, F., & Shepard, R. (2008). Physical education, school physical activity, school
sports and academic performance. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity, 5(10), doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-10
Turos, J.; Ervin, A. (2000), Training and gender differences on a web-based mental rotation
task. The Penn State Behrend Psychology Journal, 4(2), 3

108
University Of California - Los Angeles (2001, November 5). UCLA team maps how genes
affect brain structure, intelligence; dramatic images shed light on brain diseases,
personality differences. Science Daily. Retrieved April 7, 2009, from
http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2001/11/011105073104.htm
University of California - Irvine (2007, September 19). Brain network related to intelligence
identified. Science Daily. Retrieved April 11, 2009, from
http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2007/09/070911092117.htm
United States Department of Agriculture. (2008). National school lunch program [Program
fact sheet]. Available from http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/ U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). The condition of
education 2005 (NCES 2005–094). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Usiskin, Zalman. “Resolving the Continuing Dilemmas in School Geometry.” In
Learning and Teaching Geometry, K-12, edited by Mary M. Lindquist and Albert
P. Shulte, pp. 17-31. Reston, Va.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
Inc., 1987.
Vandenberg, S. G., & Kuse, A. R. (1978). Mental rotations, a group test of

Three dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 47, 599-604.
Van Ness, F. (2011). Mathematics Education and Neurosciences: Relating Spatial
Structures to the Development of Spatial Sense and Number Sense. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 7, 87-121.
Van Ness, F., & De Lange, J. (2007). Mathematics Education and Neurosciences: Relating
Spatial Structures to the Development of Spatial Sense and Number Sense. The
Montana Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 4(2) 210-240.

109
Vederhus, L., & Krekling, S. (1996). Sex difference in visual spatial ability in 9-
year-old children. Intelligence, 23, 33–43.
Vogt, W. P. (1998). Tolerance and education: Learning to live with diversity and difference.
CA: Sage Publications.
Voyer, D. (1997). Scoring procedure, performance factors, and magnitude of sex

differences in spatial performances. American Journal of Psychology, 110, 259-276.
Voyer, D., Nolan, C., & Voyer, S. (2000). The relation between experience and spatial
performance in men and women. Sex roles, 43(11-12), 891-915. doi:
10.1023/A:1011041006679
Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial
abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological
Bulletin, 117(2), 250-270.
Voyer, D., & Sullivan, A. M. (2003). The relation between spatial and mathematical
abilities: Potential factors underlying suppression. International Journal of
Psychology, 38(1), 11-23.
Vygotsky, L. (1964). Thoughts and language. (1st ed., Vol. 8, p. 168). Hanfmann &
Gertrude.
Waber, D, Carlson, D, & Mann, M. (1982). Developmental and differential aspects of
mental rotation in early adolescence. Child Development, 53, 1614-1621.
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2009). Accomplishments in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to
STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational
Psychology.
110
Waters, J. (2004). Mathematical patterning in early childhood settings. The Proceedings of
the 27th Mathematical Education Research Group of Australasia Conference, 565-
572.
Weaver-Hightower, Marcus. (Winter, 2003). The "boy turn" in research on gender and
education. Review of Educational Research, 73(4), 471-498.
Webb, R. M., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Spatial ability: A neglected
dimension in talent searches for intellectually precocious youth. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99, 397–420.
Wiedenbauer, G., Schmid, J., & Jansen-Osmann, P. (2007). Manual training of mental
rotation. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 17-36.
Williams, Angela Ruffin. (2007). The effects of summarization instruction on the
comprehension and metacognition abilities of sixth grade students in a Title I middle
school. Dissertation Abstracts, 1-149. (UMI No. 3286180)
Williams, B. (Ed.) (1996). Closing the achievement gap: A vision for changing beliefs and
practices. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Willis, J. (2006). Research based strategies to ignite student learning. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wolff-Michael Roth. (2001). Situating cognition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,
10(1/2), 27-61.
Wolfgang, C. H., Stannard, L. L., & Jones, I. (2003). Advanced constructional play with
legos among preschoolers as a predictor of later school achievement in
mathematics. Early Child Development and Care, 173(5), 467-475.

111
Wood, Susan J. (2002). Self-monitoring and at-risk middle school students. Behavior
Modification, 26(5), 605-626.
Yazici, E. (2010). Gender Differences of Elementary Prospective Teachers in Mathematical
Beliefs and Mathematics Teaching Anxiety. International Journal of Human and
Social Sciences, 5(9).
Yazici, E., & Ertekin, E. (2010). The relationship between epistemological beliefs and
teaching anxiety in mathematics. Educational research and reviews, 5(10), 631-
636.
Yilmaz. (2009). On the development and measurement of spatial. International electronic

journal of elementary education, I(2).
112
Appendix A
Michael Peters (1995). Revised Vandenberg & Kuse Mental Rotations Tests: forms
MRT-A to MRT-D. Guelph (ON), Canada: Technical Report, Department of
Psychology, University of Guelph.
Permission from Dr. Michael Peters:
From: Michael Peters

Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 9:22 PM
To: Perry, Paula
Subject: Re: how to purchase a copy of Vandenberg/Kuse (1978) Peters
(1995) MRT
Hi, Paula,
The essential part is that I need your supervisors agreement to the conditions of use of the
test (you can forward the attachment). It is not about money (I do not charge for the test);
it is about the safekeeping of the test so that it does not get into general circulation.
I need you and your supervisor's agreement to the conditions. You can forward the
attachment to her/him.
Best, Michael Peters
Michael Peters, PhD, University Professor Emeritus

Neuroscience and Applied Cognitive Sciences
University of Guelph
1 519 824-4120 ext. 53597
You will have to agree to the following conditions,
I agree not to let copies of the tests get into general circulation. This would invalidate the
test for all researchers. Thus, subjects must never be allowed to keep copies of the test
after completing it.
I agree to keep control of the test at all times (i.e. when not using it for research, please
keep it safely out of the way).
I agree to destroy the original if I no longer have any use for it and I agree to shred the
data sheets once the information has been transferred to a computer.
If I get the test as .pdf, I agree to erase the file from my computer as soon as I have
printed out a copy of the test. It is absolutely essential that no electronic copies float
about on the net because then one can junk the test because it will be of no further use.
113
________________________________________
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 3:59 PM
To: Perry, Paula
Cc: mpeters@uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re. Paula Perry's use of Vandenberg/Kuse (1978) Peters (1995) MRT
Paula, I most assuredly agree to the conditions set forth by Dr. Peters.
Robin Hobbs, Ed.D.
Associate Professor
School of Education
410-532-5146
________________________________________
From: Michael Peters
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 9:22 PM
To: Perry, Paula
Subject: Re: how to purchase a copy of Vandenberg/Kuse (1978) Peters
(1995) MRT
Hi, Paula,
The essential part is that I need your supervisors
agreement to the conditions of use of the test
(you can forward the attachment). It is not
about money (I do not charge for the test); it is
about the safekeeping of the test so that it does not
get into general circulation.
I need you and your supervisor's agreement to the conditions. You can
forward the attachment to her/him. Best, Michael Peters
Michael Peters, PhD, University Professor Emeritus

Neuroscience and Applied Cognitive Sciences
University of Guelph
1 519 824-4120 ext. 53597
114
[Type a quote from the document or the summary

Appendixof B
an interesting point. You can
position the text box anywhere in the document. Use the Drawing Tools tab to change the
formatting of the pull quote text box.]
115
Appendix C
Page 1 of 2 Initials_____ Date_____
Consent for Research Study: SeaPerch Participant
Dear Parent or Guardian,
My name is Paula Perry, and I am a STEM Math Teacher at South River High
School. I am working on my doctorate degree at Notre Dame of Maryland University.
My research will be conducted under the direction of Dr. Maureen McMahon, Assistant
Superintendent of Office of Advanced Studies for Anne Arundel County Public Schools.
I would like to ask your permission for your son or daughter to participate in a
study how age, experience, and gender influence visual spatial rotation. The project title
is, “Influences on Visual Spatial Rotation: Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Experiences, Age, and Gender.”
This research study seeks to determine if the SeaPerch program and its spatial
experience and training give the opportunity to develop strategies. This research intends
to explore the relationship of spatial-type activities that children have engaged in.
What is involved? The study will include all of the schools that participate in the
SeaPerch program in Anne Arundel County Public Schools.
• Students who participate will be asked to stay after school with their Classroom or
SeaPerch Instructor to participate in a paper and pencil spatial rotation task.
• They will be given a paper with 20 questions. Each question provides a picture of a
cube and the student is asked to match a similar picture of a cube.
• The task should take about 15 minutes.
• Your student will be asked to participate in a spatial rotation task twice. Once in
January and once at the end of April.
116
Potential benefit and concerns. Your son or daughter will be encouraged to try his or her
best on this task but he or she will not be receiving a grade for his or her performance.
The teacher education community hopes to benefit from learning if there are relationships
among participants’ level of experience in certain activities, age, and gender with visual
rotations tasks.
Participation is voluntary. Your student’s participation in this study is voluntary. There

will be no penalty if you do not wish for your student to continue; he/she may withdraw
at any time from the study.
Confidentiality. Every effort will be made to maintain confidentiality of your student, the
name of the student’s school will not be identified, nor will the teacher’s. Through the
Office of Advanced Studies, each student will be given a pseudonym/code to protect
his/her identity and maintain confidentiality.
Questions? If you have any questions about this study or its procedures, you are invited
to give me a call at my school, 410-956-5600 or pcperry@aacps.org, or my dissertation
director, Dr. Robin Hobbs at (410) 532-5146, or Dr. Barbara Helmrich, IRB Acting
Chair, Notre Dame of Maryland University, 410-532-5377.
If you agree to allow your child to participate in this study, please sign below and
return the Consent and Assent letters to me in the attached envelope. Thank you in
advance for your time and consideration.
Your signature indicates that:
You are at least 18 years of age;

• You are the parent or guardian
• The research has been explained to you;
• Your questions have been fully answered;
• And you voluntarily allow your student to participate in this research study,
I agree to allow ________________________________________ to participate in this

research.
Parent/Guardian signature __________________ Date ___________________________

117
Assent for Research Study: SeaPerch Participant
I understand that I have been asked to be in the research study with Mrs. Paula
Perry. The purpose of the study is to examine if how my age, experience, and gender
influence the way I can match cubes as they change positions or as sometime called,
visual spatial rotation.
• I will be asked to participate in a spatial rotation task.

• I will be given 20 questions and asked to match a picture of a similar cube.
• This task will occur after school and my Classroom or SeaPerch teacher will
be there, along with other students that have volunteered to participate in the
study.
• I will be asked to participate in a spatial rotation task twice.
Once in January and once at the end of April.
Mrs. Perry will never use my name or my teacher’s name when she is talking or
writing about this study. I will not receive a grade for this task. I am a volunteer, so if I
change my mind I may stop doing this study anytime without any problem.
If I have questions about this study, I can have my teachers, parents or guardians
call Mrs. Perry at school, 410-956-5600.
My signature below means I have read and understand this form and I agree to be
in the study.
Signature of Student ________________________ Date _________________________

118
Consent for Research Study: Classroom Participant
Dear Parent or Guardian,
My name is Paula Perry, and I am a STEM Math Teacher at South River High
School. I am working on my doctorate degree at Notre Dame of Maryland University.
My research will be conducted under the direction of Dr. Maureen McMahon, Assistant
Superintendent of Office of Advanced Studies for Anne Arundel County Public Schools.
I would like to ask your permission for your son or daughter to participate in a
study how age, experience, and gender influence visual spatial rotation. The project title
is, “Influences on Visual Spatial Rotation: Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Experiences, Age, and Gender.”
This research intends to explore the relationship of spatial-type activities that
children have engaged in. I would like to include students that are not participants of the
afterschool underwater robotics program called SeaPerch, but are enrolled in a school
that offers the SeaPerch program.
What is involved? The study will include all of the schools that participate in the
SeaPerch program in Anne Arundel County Public Schools.
• Students who participate will be asked to stay after school or use their flex time with
their Classroom or SeaPerch Instructor to participate in a paper and pencil spatial
rotation task.
• They will be given a paper with 20 questions. Each question provides a picture of a
cube and the student is asked to match a similar picture of a cube.
• Your student will be asked to participate in a spatial rotation task twice. Once in
Potential benefit and concerns. Your son or daughter will be encouraged to try his or her
best on this task but he or she will not be receiving a grade for his or her performance.
119
The teacher education community hopes to benefit from learning if there are relationships
among participants’ level of experience in certain activities, age, and gender with visual
rotations tasks.
Participation in voluntary. Your student’s participation in this study is voluntary. There

will be no penalty if you do not wish for your student to continue; he/she may withdraw
at any time from the study.
Confidentiality. Every effort will be made to maintain confidentiality of your student, the
name of the student’s school will not be identified, nor will the teacher’s. Through the
Office of Advanced Studies, each student will be given a pseudonym/code to protect
his/her identity and maintain confidentiality.
Questions? If you have any questions about this study or its procedures, you are invited
to give me a call at my school, 410-956-5600 or pcperry@aacps.org, or my dissertation
director, Dr. Robin Hobbs at (410) 532-5146, or Dr. Barbara Helmrich, IRB Acting
Chair, Notre Dame of Maryland University, 410-532-5377.
If you agree to allow your child to participate in this study, please sign below and
return the Consent and Assent letters to me in the attached envelope. Thank you in
advance for your time and consideration.
Your signature indicates that:
• You are at least 18 years of age;

• You are the parent or guardian
• The research has been explained to you;
• Your questions have been fully answered;
• And you voluntarily allow your student to participate in this research study,
I agree to allow ________________________________________ to participate in this

research.
___________________________ Parent/Guardian signature __________________ Date

120
Assent for Research Study: Classroom Participant
I understand that I have been asked to be in the research study with Mrs. Paula
Perry. The purpose of the study is to examine if how my age, experience, and gender
influence the way I can match cubes as they change positions or as sometime called,
visual spatial rotation.
• I will be asked to participate in a spatial rotation task.
• I will be given 20 questions and asked to match a picture of a similar cube.
• This task will occur after school and my Classroom or SeaPerch teacher will
be there, along with other students that have volunteered to participate in the
study.
• The task should take about 15 minutes after school or during flex time.
• I will be asked to participate in a spatial rotation task twice. Once in
Mrs. Perry will never use my name or my teacher’s name when she is talking or
writing about this study. I will not receive a grade for this task. I am a volunteer, so if I
change my mind I may stop doing this study anytime without any problem.
If I have questions about this study, I can have my teachers, parents or guardians
call Mrs. Perry at school, 410-956-5600. My signature below means I have read and
understand this form and I agree to be in the study.
_________________________________Signature of Student _________________ Date

121
Appendix D
122
Appendix E
Assessment Protocol
Introduction
The instructor will inform students that they will be involved in a task that will see how
well they can rotate a set of cubes in their head and know what the cubes would look like
from many different angles.
Administering the Test Directions:

1. “Please look at page 1 of the test booklet. The first five figures are all the same
figure, and rotated around what we call the vertical axis.” Here, the instructor will
demonstrate how to rotate around the vertical axis with a pre-made block figure
similar to the example item found in the test. “Please look at the items on this
page to be sure that these are all the same figure. The next section has a set of two
figures, both are the same figure but different from the first set of five figures that
we looked at above.”
2. Proceed to the four problem sets. The instructor will now describe the nature of
the problem sets to the participants.
3. A copy of the instruction page of the test booklet will be displayed on the
overhead. The instructor states, “A target figure is displayed on the left which is
between the two dark black lines (point to target figure), and three other figures
are on the right (point to the three figures). In all problem sets there is one figure
on the right which is the same as the target figure but shown from a different
angle and two figures which cannot be turned to match the target figure. In
Problem set number 1, try to identify the one figure that is identical to the target
figure by putting an X across the correct figure.” (Allow time for participants to
identify the correct figure). “The answer is given below. The second figure
matches the target figure.”
4. “Now try the three problems on page 2. The correct answers are given below.”
At least 5 minutes will be given for students to work through the three problems.
5. “Please turn your test booklet over so that it is face down.”

0 Influences On Visual Spatial Rotation Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

0 Influences On Visual Spatial Rotation Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notre Dame of Maryland University

The dissertation of Paula C. Perry entitled Influences on Visual Spatial Rotation:

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Experiences, Age, and

the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Instructional Leadership for Changing Populations

Robin Hobbs, Ed.D

Sr. Bridget Connor, Ed.D

Mark Fenster, Ph.D.

Mathematics (STEM) Experiences, Age, and Gender

Paula Christine Perry

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of

The Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Notre Dame of Maryland University

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education

curriculum is designed to strengthen students’ science and math achievement through

at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. SeaPerch is an innovative underwater robotics

manipulating three dimensional objects but in strengthening mathematical ability (e.g.

gender and age.

scores for students in the non-SeaPerch program.

Be the hero of your own story.

me to gain the clarity that I never had before.

To my committee members, you have modeled the characteristics and dedication

continued enthusiasm; Dr. Mark Fenster, you arrived to NDMU unknowingly as my

gratitude, a heartfelt thanks to Dr. Robin Hobbs whose words of encouragement,

forgotten. You are my role model.

Sr. Jane, Maisha, Lisa, Jeff, Joelle, Debbie, and Mary.

The acknowledgement would not be complete without my family. Your

believe it possible. To my NDMU family, thank you for believing in me.

Chapter I: INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER ................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................... 3

Chapter II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ......................................................... 15

Experience and Knowledge ................................................................................. 15

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ...................................................... 38

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 80

Appendix A: Peters (1995) Mental Rotation Test ............................................. 112

1. Student Participant Demographics (n=739) ................................................................. 39

25. Independent Samples t Test for Mental Rotation Test

1. Elementary SeaPerch Preassessment Histogram ......................................................... 65

learning experiences (Halpern, 2007).

experiences. He saw mental differences among human beings as mainly due to

differences in environmental experiences, rather than inherited or innate qualities. His

ability to learn (Pinker, 2002).

Vygotsky argued that biological and maturational aspects of development as well

Abilities are developed in supportive environments as experience alters brain

structures and functioning. A wide range of sociocultural forces contribute to differences

in mathematics achievement and ability including the influences of family, neighborhood,

Yazici & Ertekin, 2010).

Statement of the Problem

Identifying and focusing on fundamental elements that affect the development of

correlated with mathematics achievement, with males consistently out-performing

females in some areas (Hyde & Mertz, 2009).

Spatial sense plays an essential role in the development of children’s

mathematical abilities as it contributes to their understanding of quantities and

relationships between numbers (Van Ness, 2011). Mental rotation, problem-solving

go on to develop expertise in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)

2000). STEM programs such as SeaPerch apply spatial thinking to mathematical

Students are influenced by real world experiences and flourish in an environment

Some researchers have found positive correlations between achievement in mathematics

(Quaiser-Pohl & Lehmann, 2002; Voyer, Nolan & Voyer, 2000).

Mental rotation abilities may be modulated by learning, suggesting that nurture

The research suggests that attaining a better understanding of how children at

rotation abilities and, possibly, their performance in mathematics (Sowder, 2007;