### - Enhancing Spatial Visualisation Skills in First Year Engineering Students - Important Thesis

ENHANCING SPATIAL VISUALIZATION SKILLS IN FIRST-YEAR
ENGINEERING STUDENTS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy
in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Yosef S. Allam
One-of-a-Kind Doctor of Philosophy
The Ohio State University
2009
Dissertation Committee:
Clark A. Mount-Campbell, Advisor
Patricia A. Brosnan
Robert J. Gustafson
Douglas T. Owens
Copyright by
Yosef S. Allam
2009
ABSTRACT
Spatial visualization skills are a function of genetics and life experiences. An
individual’s genetic spatial visualization aptitude can be enhanced through proper
instruction and practice. Spatial visualization skills are important to engineers as they
help with problem formulation and thus enhance problem-solving ability. They are also
vital to an engineer’s ability to create and interpret visual representations of design ideas.
This study seeks to investigate the experiential factors affecting spatial visualization
skills and methods with which these skills can be enhanced. This study also investigates
the correlation between spatial visualization ability and pre-college life experiences, as
well as spatial visualization ability and academic performance. Participants were selected
from an introductory engineering course. Participants in the treatment and control groups
were pre- and post-tested using the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test—Rotations to
gauge spatial visualization ability. The treatment consisted of students being given a
series of technology-generated representations of figures from various perspectives that
may aid in visualization of these objects. Scores between the treatment and control
groups were compared and checked for statistical significance. Participants were also
given a questionnaire to complete. The answers from the questionnaire were coded for
levels of pre-college experience in certain key areas that are hypothesized to aid in the
development of spatial visualization skills. These quantitative experience levels were
ii
correlated to pre-test results to verify the hypothesis of these life experiences’
significance in spatial visualization ability development. The relationship between
student academic performance and spatial visualization ability was also investigated.
Instructional tool utilization and access effects on spatial visualization skill gains
between pre-tests and post-tests were not significant. This is potentially due to a
substitutive rather than additive effect to student experiences through usage of the
instructional tool. Developmental experiences with stackable toys such as Legos and
building blocks were a significant predictor of initial spatial ability, confirming previous
findings. Developmental experiences with home improvement activities significantly
affected graded performance in coursework. Initial spatial ability was also a significant
predictor of course grades.
Course grade and resource web-based applications can be used successfully in the
deployment of open access electronic instructional tools. Institutional web applications
can also be used to automate and conduct large studies. Access, utilization logging,
grades, and enforcement of experimental design parameters and treatment group
segregation can be provisioned via online course grade and resource repositories such as
Carmen, by Desire-to-Learn, employed in this study. Improvements in data accessibility
must be made in course web applications to facilitate more studies conducted in this
manner. Improvements in usability, reporting, and analysis are necessary to allow for
streamlined study implementation and data dissemination for educational research in
courses employing web applications. Improvements to course web applications can
allow educational researchers to effectively capitalize on this technology.
iii
DEDICATION
For my family, my mother Magda, my father Serry, and my sister Dina.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It was through the guidance, support, and encouragement of many that the goals
of this researcher were realized. Great thanks and appreciation are due to those that
follow:
Dr. Clark Mount-Campbell, my advisor, for his patience and latitude to allow me
to find my own way, as well as his guidance and friendship throughout the years we have
known each other. Our conversations over the years spurred many thoughts in new
directions.
Dr. Patti Brosnan, for her support and encouragement to consider various research
methods, as well her openness to allowing me to perform mathematics education course
projects with engineering students. These projects formed the initial groundwork for this
study.
Dr. Bob Gustafson, for allowing and encouraging me to use the First-Year
Engineering Program as a laboratory for my research, as well as the many other
opportunities which allowed me to gain experience in an environment rich in engineering
education innovation.
Dr. Doug Owens, for his help from the onset and throughout my journey into
educational research. His guidance in the realm of pedagogical theory as well as
selection of coursework best suited for my research interests and goals was indispensible.
v
Dr. John Merrill, who made available to me every opportunity in his power to
allow me to pursue my passion for engineering education, and for keeping me informed
of new developments and opportunities.
Dr. David Tomasko, whose energy and passion for both research and engineering
education are inspirational. Working with him and seeking his advice over the years has
enriched my journey to this goal.
All the fine people of The Ohio State University over the years who unfortunately
cannot be listed here. The institution and its people have helped me realize my dreams.
Finally, I would also like to thank my friends and family who encouraged me
along the way and listened. Of particular note are my mother, father, and sister, as well
as my friend Dr. Srikant Nekkanty, who empathized and commiserated, and my lifelong
friend and confidant, Stephanie, for her help, encouragement, and critical eye in the final
stages of this endeavor.
vi
VITA
February 25, 1974………………………….. Born – Bayonne, New Jersey
1997………………………………………... B. S. Industrial and Systems Engineering

1997 – 1999………………………………... Graduate Teaching Associate

Industrial and Systems Engineering
1999………………………………………... M. S. Industrial and Systems Engineering

Specialization: Operations Research
2002………………………………………... Instructor and Curriculum Developer

First-Year Engineering Programs
2002 – 2008………………………………... Graduate Teaching Associate,

Lead Graduate Teaching Associate,
Curriculum Developer
2008 – 2009……………………………….. NSF Graduate STEM Fellow in K-12

Education (GK-12)
2009 – Present……………………………... Instructor

vii
PUBLICATIONS
Allam, Y., & Irani, S. A. (1999). Systematic redesign of a manufacturing cell. In S. A.

Irani (Ed.), Handbook of Cellular Manufacturing Systems (pp. 661-679). New
York: Wiley.
Allam, Y., Tomasko, D. L., Trott, B., Schlosser, P., Yang, Y., Wilson, T. M., & Merrill,
J. (2008). Lab-on-a-chip design-build project with a nanotechnology component
in a freshman engineering course. Chemical Engineering Education, 42 (4), 185-
192.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: One-of-a-Kind Doctor of Philosophy
Engineering Education
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ v
VITA ................................................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER 1: CONTEXT, RATIONALE, AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ....... 1
Problem Context ............................................................................................................. 1

Motivating Factors .......................................................................................................... 1
Problem Statement .......................................................................................................... 3
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 4
Rationale: The Significance of Spatial Visualization Skills in Engineering Education ... 5
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................... 6
Factors Affecting Spatial Visualization Ability........................................................... 6
Learning Theory and Cognitive Development ............................................................ 6
Piagetian Spatial Development................................................................................. 10
Representation .......................................................................................................... 15
Theoretical Implications ........................................................................................... 19
ix
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 22
Historical Perspective.................................................................................................... 23
Significance of Spatial Visualization Skills in Engineering Education ......................... 24
Assessing Visualization Skills ...................................................................................... 25
Factors Affecting Spatial Visualization Ability ............................................................ 27
Alternatives to Promoting Good Visualization Skills .................................................... 30
Enhancing Visualization Skills ..................................................................................... 31
Virtual Three-dimensional Remediation ................................................................... 33
Problem-based Learning .......................................................................................... 38
Implications................................................................................................................... 39
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 40
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY, DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS .............. 41
Participants .................................................................................................................... 42
Instruments .................................................................................................................... 42
Treatment ...................................................................................................................... 46
Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 47
Research Design ............................................................................................................ 51
Sample and Initial Calculations ............................................................................... 51
Underlying Considerations ....................................................................................... 54
Data Collection and Parsing Devices....................................................................... 55
Data Logs .............................................................................................................. 55
Other Data ............................................................................................................ 56
Master Spreadsheet Data and Pre-Analysis Activities ......................................... 57
Hypotheses, Models, and Variables .............................................................................. 57
Tool Access Effects on Spatial Visualization Improvement ...................................... 58
Tool Utilization Effects on Spatial Visualization Improvement................................ 59
Experience Effects on Spatial Visualization Ability Gains ....................................... 60
Experience Effects on Initial Spatial Visualization Ability ....................................... 61
Experience Effects on Grades ................................................................................... 62
Tool Utilization Effects on Grades ........................................................................... 63
Spatial Visualization Pre-test Effects on Grades ...................................................... 64
x
Risks.............................................................................................................................. 65
Internal Validity ............................................................................................................ 66
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 66
Tool Effectiveness......................................................................................................... 66
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 67
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ....................................................... 70
Treatment of the Data .................................................................................................... 70

Preliminary Analysis of DATA: General Trends and Relationships ............................... 72
Principal Analysis of Data: Hypothesis Testing ............................................................ 81
Tool Access Effects on Spatial Visualization Improvement ...................................... 81
Tool Utilization Effects on Spatial Visualization Improvement................................ 86
Experience Effects on Spatial Visualization Ability Gains ....................................... 89
Experience Effects on Initial Spatial Visualization Ability ....................................... 92
Experience Effects on Grades ................................................................................... 94
Tool Utilization Effects on Grades ......................................................................... 100
Spatial Visualization Pre-test Effects on Grades .................................................... 105
Student Feedback ........................................................................................................ 113
Questionnaire.......................................................................................................... 113
Focus Group ........................................................................................................... 116
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... 117
Discussion and Conclusions ........................................................................................ 118

Discussion and Conclusions of Results .................................................................. 118
Tool Access Effects on Spatial Visualization Improvement ................................ 118
Tool Utilization Effects on Spatial Visualization Improvement.......................... 118
Experience Effects on Spatial Visualization Ability Gains ................................. 120
Experience Effects on Initial Spatial Visualization Ability ................................. 121
Experience Effects on Grades ............................................................................. 122
Tool Utilization Effects on Grades ..................................................................... 123
Spatial Visualization Pre-test Effects on Grades ................................................ 123
Survey Responses ................................................................................................ 124
Discussion and Conclusions of Limitations ............................................................ 125
xi
Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 127
Recommendations for Practice ............................................................................... 127
Recommendations for Research .............................................................................. 128
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 131
APPENDIX A: PURDUE SPATIAL VISUALIZATION TEST – ROTATIONS ........ 137
APPENDIX B: EXPERIENCE SCORE LIKERT-TYPE SURVEY QUESTIONS ...... 153
APPENDIX C: SURVEY AND FOCUS GROUP SOLICITATION ............................ 155
APPENDIX D: RELEVANT ENG 181 WINTER 2008 DRAWING ASSIGNMENTS159
APPENDIX E: ENG 181 WINTER 2008 DAILY ASSIGNMENT LIST ..................... 172
APPENDIX F: CONSENT DOCUMENTATION ......................................................... 174
APPENDIX G: ENG 181 WINTER 2008 EXAM DRAWING PROBLEMS ............... 180
APPENDIX H: DATA PARSING MACRO .................................................................. 188
APPENDIX I: SQL SCRIPT .......................................................................................... 197
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.1: Engineering graphics concepts required for creating graphical representations. ........ 2
1.2: Piagetian cognitive and spatial development. ............................................................ 15
1.3: Important spatial visualization concerns and theoretical protocol............................. 20
3.1: Power curve for one-way ANOVA, n=112, α=0.05, σ=5.3. ..................................... 53
3.1: Potential pattern of results given effective instructional tool. ................................... 67
4.1: Average spatial visualization score plotted vs. Experience score. ............................ 74
4.2: Average spatial visualization post-test score plotted vs. spatial visualization pre-test
score. ......................................................................................................................... 75
4.3: Main effects for PSVT—R post-test for the usage random factor. ........................... 89
4.4: Drawing 11 grades plotted against PSVT—R pre-test scores by animation tool usage.
................................................................................................................................. 113
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
4.1: Descriptive statistics for blocked sections, excluding grades. ................................... 73
4.2: Pearson product moment correlation coefficients for initial spatial ability, various
Drawing and non-drawing grades, and Experience scores. ...................................... 77
4.3: Pearson product moment correlation coefficients for initial spatial ability, various
Drawing and non-drawing grades, animation tool utilization, and Experience scores.
................................................................................................................................... 78
4.4: T-test for significant differences in PSVT—R means between control and treatment
groups, filtered for pre-test scores, grades, and Experience scores. ......................... 79
4.5: T-test for significant differences in PSVT—R means between control and treatment
groups, filtered for pre-test scores. ........................................................................... 80
4.6: ANOVA for significant differences in PSVT—R between blocked labs, filtered for
pre-test scores............................................................................................................ 81
4.7: GLM for significant differences in blocked labs, filtered for pre-test and post-test
scores excluding zeros. ............................................................................................. 81
4.8: Descriptive statistics for data set filtered for PSVT—R and Experience scores. ...... 83
4.9: GLM ANCOVA for significant differences in PSVT—R post-test between control
and treatment groups with blocked labs and experience and pre-test scores as
covariates. ................................................................................................................. 84
4.10: GLM ANCOVA for significant differences in PSVT—R post-test between control
and treatment groups, given blocked labs and pre-test scores as covariates. ........... 85
4.11: GLM ANCOVA for significant effects of the Overall Total Time utilization
covariate on PSVT—R post-test scores. ................................................................... 87
4.12: GLM for PSVT—R post-test score effects by the animation usage factor. ............ 89
xiv
4.13: Experience effects and interactions with PSVT—R test gains. ............................... 91
4.14: GLM for PSVT—R pre-test score effects from Experience composite scores. ...... 92
4.15: GLM for PSVT—R pre-test score effects by Experience components: MODELS,
SPORTS, and MUSIC. ............................................................................................. 94
4.16: GLM for response Non-visualization grades effects by Experience score covariates.
................................................................................................................................... 96
4.17: GLM for response all visualization grades effects by Experience score covariates.97
4.18: GLM for response of drawing problem scores on midterm exam effects by
Experience score covariates. ..................................................................................... 98
4.19: GLM for drawing assignment visualization grades effects by Experience score
covariates. ................................................................................................................. 99
4.20: Effects of animation tool usage on drawing visualization grades. ........................ 101
4.21: Effects of animation tool visits on drawing visualization grades. ......................... 102
4.22: Effects of animation tool visits on midterm exam visualization grades. ............... 103
4.23: T-test for Drawing 11 scores of those using the Drawing 11 animation tool versus
those who did not use the tool................................................................................. 104
4.24: GLM for Drawing 11 animation tool usage effects on Drawing 11 grades. ......... 105
4.25: Effects of PSVT—R pre-test scores on all grades. ................................................ 106
4.26: Effects of PSVT—R pre-test scores on all but Drawing assignments. .................. 107
4.27: Effects of PSVT—R pre-test scores on all but Drawing assignments and exam
Drawing grades. ...................................................................................................... 108
4.28: Effects of PSVT—R pre-test scores on Drawing assignment and exam Drawing
grades. ..................................................................................................................... 109
4.29: Effects of PSVT—R pre-test scores on Drawing assignment grades. ................... 110
4.30: Effects of PSVT—R pre-test scores on Drawing midterm exam grades............... 111
4.31: Effects of PSVT—R pre-test scores and Experience composite scores on Drawing
midterm exam grades. ............................................................................................. 112
xv
CHAPTER 1: CONTEXT, RATIONALE, AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Problem Context
Everything concrete or tangible in this world forms the experiences and actions
for which mental representations among three-dimensional objects in space and time are
created for understanding and mental processing. The ability to statically create and
dynamically project mental representations of three-dimensional objects in different
space and time settings is often referred to as spatial visualization. Spatial visualization
skills are a result of genetics (potential) and life experiences (practice and development).
Varying levels of potential and practice and development in individuals result in varied
levels of spatial visualization skills. Spatial visualization skills in young adults can be
enhanced through instruction and practice (Piburn, Reynolds, McAuliffe, et al., 2005;
Crown, 2001, Deno, 1995; Lord, 1985; Pallrand & Seeber, 1984; Peters, Chisholm,
Laeng, 1995; Sorby & Baartmans, 1996).
Motivating Factors
Specific to this application, spatial visualization skills are an important aspect of
engineering education. They enhance student understanding and help students formulate
problems. Spatial visualization ability is essential for engineers to perform adequately in
academia and industry. Visualization ability is often indicative of academic performance
in the engineering curriculum (Yue, 2002).
1
Today, engineering graphics instructional teams strive to develop in students the
necessary spatial visualization and graphical representation skills to allow them to
express ideas in the course of solving problems. The major requisite skills by
engineering graphics students for the generation of graphical representations are depicted
in Figure 1.1.
Manual Drafting Representing on Computer-aided design

Technology Media
Neat labeling of all of
the depictions below Transferring Figure Merging with
Familiarity With Familiarity With Other
Drafting Tools Lettering Technology Tools Technologies
(pencil, eraser, T-square (virtual space,computer, (word processor,
triangle, etc.) mouse, etc.) Presentations,
Project real object
Onto 2-D space
Manufacturing)
Project real object
Onto 2-D space
Depict
with removed
material
Sectioned 2-D
Depict Sectioned
Multi-View Multi-view Multi-view
with removed Multi-View
material CAD CAD
Pr
Represent interior
Represent interior
or properly show
Visualize in 2-D
Visualize in 2-D
es
or 3-D per view

or 3-D per view
or properly show
op
si z
interior sizes
er
interior sizes
ly
ow
sh
sh
ow
ly
si
er
ze
op
s
Pr
Dimensioning
Dimensioning 3-D
&
Isometric & Solid Model
Tolerancing
Tolerancing CAD
CAD
Figure 1.1: Engineering graphics concepts required for creating graphical representations.
In the context it was defined earlier, spatial visualization is a subcategory of
visualization. Visualization can be defined as, “the ability to take an idea from one’s
mind and model it…”, and “...the ability to comprehend someone else’s model”
(Newcomer, McKell, Raudebaugh, 2001, p. 33).

2
Given that first-year engineering students enter the academic field of engineering
with a variety of backgrounds and experiences, and thus, varying degrees of spatial
visualization skill development, there is a need for additional attention and effort in some
students. Sometimes standard instruction and coursework at the introductory level of
engineering graphics is not enough. Students on this lower end of spatial visualization
skill development need to close the gap between the level of their skills in this area and
the level of the more honed skills of their peers.
Since spatial visualization skills are essential for success in engineering and other
technical fields of study, it is important to develop spatial visualization ability during the
developmental years of students. The need for remediation can be avoided through
activities involving building, tactile manipulation of objects, and other tasks to reinforce
these skills prior to college. Good spatial visualization skills can maintain low student
attrition rates in science and engineering, and improve general student performance in the
engineering curricula. Problem-solving and problem formulation abilities are related to
spatial visualization skills (Carter, LaRussa, Bodner, 1987). A lack of high spatial
visualization capabilities on the part of entering freshman students at the postsecondary
level may result in students selecting programs of study outside of engineering and other
technical fields. Spatial visualization competency is thus a significant concern.
Problem Statement
Undergraduate students entering a first-year engineering program arrive with a
variety of backgrounds, experiences, and abilities. Spatial visualization skills are among
those abilities that have been correlated to performance in engineering graphics and other
introductory first-year engineering courses, as well as the overall quality of engineers.

3
This study will examine tools and techniques that can be used to enhance the spatial
visualization skills of beginning engineering students. The relationship between grades,
spatial visualization instructional tool usage, developmental experiences, and spatial
visualization test scores will also be investigated.
Research Questions
This study will address the following questions:
1. Can a computer aided design (CAD)-based 3-dimensional animated model
of existing, assigned, paper-based engineering graphics problems be used as
an effective instructional tool that enables students to enhance their spatial
visualization skills?
2. Does participation in certain activities prior to enrolling in an engineering
degree program in college predict initial scores on spatial visualization
tests?
3. Do students’ experience levels in certain developmental activities, positively
correlated to spatial visualization ability, predict student gains in spatial
visualization tests?
4. How do spatial visualization skills in engineering students, as gauged by
spatial visualization tests, relate to performance on relevant engineering
graphics assignments?
5. How do spatial visualization skills in engineering students, as gauged by
spatial visualization tests, relate to performance on relevant non-graphics
assignments?
4
Rationale: The Significance of Spatial Visualization Skills in Engineering Education
Engineering graphics courses develop graphical communication and spatial
visualization skills in student engineers. Spatial visualization skills should be
emphasized throughout the engineering curriculum. The use of spatial instructional
strategies in engineering courses can reinforce student abilities (Hsi, Linn, Bell, 1997).
Exam scores in engineering and other technical fields of study are significantly correlated
to spatial visualization ability. Understanding of physics concepts, as evaluated by
testing, has been to shown to be predicted by initial spatial visualization abilities of
physics students (Kozhevnikov & Thornton, 2006).
Spatial visualization skills should be promoted through remedial instruction at the
collegiate level or during the developmental periods prior to college. Students who claim
a general dislike for the sciences and technical disciplines often lack adequate spatial
visualization skills regardless of their performance in other areas (Pallrand & Seeber,
1984). Spatial visualization is also strongly related to problem solving ability, an
essential aspect of engineering (Carter, et al., 1987).
Technology tools such as computer-aided design and modeling (CAD and CAM)
do not alleviate the need for strong spatial visualization skills, nor does the practice of
blind adherence to analytic procedures or algorithms in the course of providing alternate
representations of objects and designs. Students who do not possess the prerequisite skill
set should be given options to remediate and enhance their spatial visualization skills to
prepare them for engineering graphics and the remaining engineering curriculum for
which possession of these skills is essential. Students should be discouraged from
circumventing a skill area necessary for proficiency in their future profession.
5
Theoretical Framework
Factors Affecting Spatial Visualization Ability
Early research on spatial visualization skills suggested that spatial visualization
ability is wholly innate (Lord, 1985). Modern studies however indicate that spatial
visualization skills can be improved through practice (Piburn, et al., 2005; Crown, 2001,
Deno, 1995; Lord, 1985; Pallrand & Seeber, 1984; Peters, et al., 1995; Sorby &
Baartmans, 1996). Those with deficiencies in spatial visualization ability can work to
develop their skills.
The source of spatial visualization deficiencies includes a lack of previous
experiences such as actions performed on objects in space. Childhood activities
involving construction games and toys, art and sketching, video games, sports, and tactile
experiences with concrete objects are among the positive socio-cultural influences listed
by researchers (Pallrand & Seeber, 1984; Peters, et al., 1995; Yue, 2002).
Learning Theory and Cognitive Development
Jean Piaget proposes four stages of cognitive development: sensory-motor, which
is pre-verbal; pre-operational representation, which creates the underpinnings of language
and symbol; concrete operational, which precedes full capability of abstraction; and
finally, formal or hypothetic-deductive operational, which allows for full abstraction such
as reasoning on hypotheses and the ability of propositional logic (2003, S9). Piaget
provides ages as guidelines to separate one stage from another: the sensory-motor stage
ends around 18 to 24 months of age; the pre-operational representation stage reaches up
to seven to eight years of age; the concrete operational stage lasts to eleven to twelve
6
years of age typically; and the hypothetic-deductive operational stage develops through
adolescence and onward. Piaget’s theories require that development precedes learning.
Learning at higher levels becomes possible only as the individual passes through the four
stages of development. Undergraduate engineering students would thus be in the fourth
Piagetian stage of development.
These stages are traversed as a result of four factors: maturation, limiting mental
potential; experience, or play and interaction with the environment; social transmission,
or social context; and equilibration, of which the fourth he stresses and discusses in great
depth (Piaget, 2003, S10-S14). Piaget says that individuals, upon encountering a new
piece of knowledge, always seek to maintain balance or equilibrium. Upon feeling
perturbation from a new piece of knowledge, an individual learner will first attempt to
assimilate this information into their existing structures, and, if this fails to attain the
necessary balance or comfort level, they will accommodate it via a restructuring of their
existing mental structures in an effort to avoid feeling perturbation (Piaget, 2003, S13-
S14).
Piaget talks of a structure which acts as an intermediary between “stimulus” and
“response” in the traditional S—R model (2003, S14). The response essentially already
exists if there is any response at all, as the response is only elicited by the stimulus if
there is supporting structure. The structure continues to develop through assimilation and
accommodation, potentially affecting the evolution of the response with each iteration,
thus the circular nature of the model.
Those in Piaget’s fourth stage of cognitive development are typified by ability to
delve into the hypothetical without having to see or interact with the concrete; abstract
7
thought is possible (2003, pp. S9-S10). An individual in this last stage of development is
capable of reason “on the basis of simple assumptions which have no necessary relation
to reality or to the subject’s beliefs, and from the time when he relies on the necessary
validity of an inference (vi formae), as opposed to agreement of the conclusions with
experience” (Piaget, 1976, p.148). In other words, thought is not bounded by the finite
set of experiences of the individual in that “there is even more than reality involved, since
the world of the possible becomes available for construction and since thought becomes
free from the real world” (Piaget, 1976, p. 151). Eventually the ties to “real action” are
not necessary as the individual can make “hypothetic-deductive operations concerning
pure implications from propositions stated as postulates” (Piaget, 1976, p. 153).
Lev Vygotsky (1978) defines two terms, one of which is the Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD), while the other is “actual developmental level” (p. 85). The actual
developmental level is defined as what a child can do independently, without the
assistance of others. The ZPD is everything beyond that point which can be performed
by the child with assistance. Vygotsky (1978) specifically says the following about the
ZPD:
It is the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by
independent problem solving and the level of potential development as
determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with
more capable peers. (p. 86)
Vygotsky states that learning should lead development and encourage
development. The only learning of any use to children is that which advances
development (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 89). Through the exercising of the child’s ZPD with
8
the help of those in the social context providing necessary guidance and social
interactions, internal developmental processes are utilized and knowledge from actual
experience in the social context is eventually re-constructed and internalized to expand
the child’s attained developmental level (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 90).
Progression of learning and development, and expansion of the ZPD thus requires
the assistance of an adult or capable peer. After Vygotsky’s time, this is referred to as
scaffolding (Bruner, 1990, p. 106). Scaffolding is any type of external aid or assistance
provided directly by or developed in proxy by someone more capable, and can take the
form of books, conversation, teamwork, computer-based exercises and instruction,
questions, discussion, or any cultural artifact in the social context which aids the learner
in some manner in their ZPD as they internalize and re-construct that which they take
from the social context. A form of scaffolding, for example, could be three-dimensional
rotated animations for students in engineering graphical communications classes.
So learning drives mental development; independent ability is representative of
actual development, while ability with assistance is representative of prospective
development. Therefore, prospective development, or the Zone of Proximal
Development, should be the target area of instruction. Two individuals may have the
same level of actual developmental ability, but they do not necessarily have a zone of
proximal development which encompasses the same scope, breadth, or depth in any given
area. This suggests the need for a variety of different types, and by extension, sources of
scaffolding. This is something difficult for one teacher to provide on their own, and
causes educators to look elsewhere for “non-traditional” models and sources of
scaffolding, including indirect instructional methods.
9
Discussion of Vygotsky and Piaget and their theories on the structuring of
knowledge thus inevitably leads to the theory of constructivism. The two guiding
principles, as stated by von Glasersfeld (1989) are:
a) Knowledge is not passively received either through the senses or by way of
communication; b) knowledge is actively built up by the cognizing subject.
a) The function of cognition is adaptive, in the biological sense of the term,
tending towards fit or viability; [italics in original] b) cognition serves the
subject’s organization of the experiential world, not the discovery of an objective
ontological reality. (p. 5)
Considering the documented work of classics and contemporaries on the issues of
social versus radical constructivism, it is apparent that regardless of social considerations,
the individual still constructs knowledge to satisfy his/her world as his/her perception
allows.
Piagetian Spatial Development
In Piaget’s works, there are parent and subordinate spatial abilities in a two-tiered
hierarchical tree of spatial abilities which overlap in development with some degree of
sequence but also some concurrence. These spatial abilities generally increase in
complexity and developmental level required for mastery and are acquired and honed as
the child ages and develops mentally. These spatial abilities (or “spaces”) and the sub-
abilities within each space chronologically, but loosely, follow the four stages of
cognitive development (Piaget, 1967) at different paces and points of inception. In
general, of the three spaces, the two more advanced spaces and their associated spatial
10
sub-abilities develop later in the four stages of cognitive development than the less
advanced space and its sub-abilities.
Before delving into the details of these spatial abilities, sub-abilities, and how
they relate to the stages of cognitive development, Piagetian terminology and nuances
should be clarified. There are five terms referred to as “spaces.” To alleviate confusion,
it is best to consider perceptual and conceptual space as types of thought, and topological,
projective, and Euclidian space as spatial abilities, under each of which are several
specific sub-abilities.
Piaget does not effectively distinguish between projective and Euclidian spatial
abilities in instances, nor does he specify defined starting points of all spatial ability
development relative to perceptual versus conceptual spatial thought (Reese, 1999, p.
167) thus eliciting many gray areas. The implication of all this is that it is important to be
cognizant of the generalities involved in the spatial abilities, their corresponding spatial
sub-abilities, and how they relate loosely—sometimes concurrently, and sometimes
sequentially—to the cognitive stages of development.
Conceptual thought lags behind but grows in tandem with perceptual thought.
Both of these develop simultaneously with perceptual thought as the original buttressing
factor of conceptual thought. Perceptual thought remains ahead of conceptual thought
throughout the spatial development of the child even as the child traverses the major
spaces of topological, projective, and Euclidian spatial abilities. Most of the topological
spatial ability develops alongside perceptual and conceptual thought. As these
developments near maturity, the development of projective and Euclidian spatial abilities
begins to flourish.
11
As a child progresses through Piaget’s four stages of cognitive development,
he/she first develops primarily in the area of topological spatial ability and its
corresponding sub-abilities. Topological spatial abilities are the most basic of the three
spatial abilities and include shape recognition, shape differentiation, order, surrounding,
and continuity. At first the infant is in perceptual thought visio-spatially and
simultaneously in the sensory-motor cognitive stage of development. At this point the
child performs “an imitation of the object by an action” (Piaget, 1967, p. 455) and is
unable to mentally capture objects, or conceptualize that which is not immediately
accessible. Only the most basic spatial relationships, such as proximity, separation,
order, enclosure, and continuity are available with development and time progression
through the topological space.
The conceptual spatial ability begins late in the sensory-motor cognitive stage of
development and occurs when the child can conceptualize or imagine an object or actions
on an object regardless of the object’s presence in the field of the child’s activity. “The
construction of space begins on the perceptual level and continues on the representational
[conceptual] one” (Piaget, 1967, p. 38). As development continues and the child
progresses through the conceptual level, “the image, which from the very beginning is
symbolic in character, plays an increasingly subordinate role as the active component of
thought becomes better organized” (Piaget, 1967, p. 456). The perceptual thought
development continues and allows for further conceptual thought development as the
child acquires more topological spatial abilities. Simultaneously, the child experiences
more “decentration,” corresponding to less egocentricity, allowing him/her to conceive of
12
spatial relationships outside his/her immediate sphere of influence in reality and the
surrounding concrete environment, allowing for a later shift in spatial perspectives.
The development of projective and Euclidian spatial abilities are minimally
concurrent with the development of the topological abilities and have unclear starting
points. These two more advanced spatial abilities trickle at first prior to the final, or
hypothetical-mathematical, stage of cognitive development while topological spatial
abilities are rapidly developing. Projective and Euclidian spatial abilities then accelerate
concurrently as the child nears or reaches full development of topological abilities and
cognitive development progresses into the fourth, or logical-mathematical, abstract
reasoning stage of cognitive development. It is the projective spatial abilities that allow
for understanding of spatial relationships between multiple objects simultaneously and,
importantly, the concept of viewpoint (Reese, 1999, p. 167). It is here that object
orientation, viewer perspective and similar advanced spatial visualization abilities
develop.
Euclidian spatial development allows for measurement, combining mathematical
understandings such as conservation, similarities, proportions, mathematical
generalizations applied to space and objects in space, systems and frames of reference
and coordinate systems, and full understanding of accurate, scaled, visual, proportioned
models or diagrammatic representations. It must be stressed that many of these Euclidian
spatial abilities must develop concurrently with projective spatial abilities. Both stem
from topologic spatial ability, but in different ways (Piaget, 1967). This study focuses on
the Piagetian projective spatial abilities.
13
The relationships and developmental timing of Piagetian stages of cognitive
development, spatial abilities, and perceptual/conceptual phases are schematically
depicted in Figure 1.2. Note that the approximate development of each is indicated by
increasing opaqueness of each representative bar as a function of age and cognitive
developmental stage progression.
Spatial visualization skills can be honed by presenting a variety of different
representations of objects. The simplest and oldest of these are concrete representations
such as wooden blocks cut to a size and shape to be depicted graphically by the student.
Paper depictions and dynamic depictions on a computer screen are other forms that can
help students see different perspectives of objects. Research in other fields of education
has demonstrated the value of the use of multiple representations in the classroom.
14
Figure 1.2. Piagetian cognitive and spatial development.
Representation
A representation is a schema, transformation, model, symbol, or a map of an idea,
concept, knowledge bit, datum, or set of these. Representations in education are
commonly divided into internal and external representations. External representations
occur outside the mind and can serve to communicate organized thoughts for ourselves or
others, and include such things as graphs, text, diagrams, drawings, equations, models
and prototypes. External representations are an expression of an idea or collection of
ideas, perhaps just a bookmark for a thought, or as extensive as a full, formal

15
communication intended for others. The recognition and active application of
representations in the classroom are Piagetian in that:
Knowledge is not a copy of reality. To know an object, to know an event, is not
simply to look at it and make a mental copy or image of it. To know an object is
to act on it. To know is to modify, to transform the object, and to understand the
process of this transformation, and as a consequence to understand the way the
object is constructed. (Piaget, 2003, p. S8)
External representations can be static or dynamic (Goldin & Shteingold, 2001), especially
considering the current state of technology. Internal representations represent a mental
schematic, idea or picture of a concept. They are impossible to gauge directly because
they occur inside the mind. However, internal representations dictate how an individual
generates external representations, and in this sense they can be gauged indirectly. They
can also be corrected, refined, reinforced, extended, and built upon through exercising the
recursive use of representations in the classroom.
The concepts of internal representation and external representation (Janvier,
Girardon, & Morand, 1993) are similar in that they both refer to the symbolism of an
object or idea and a resultant transformation. They are distinct in that internal
representations are formed internally in the mind and consist of mental images or
schemas that exist as part of the cognitive structure of the brain. External representations,
however, exist outside the mind in the social context of the learning environment
(Vygotsky 1978). Their variety and multitude (Brenner, et al., 1997) and their
similarities to the existing internal representations and cognitive structures in the mind of
a student can enhance the learning and development of a student.
16
Representations in the classroom can promote or hinder the cognition of concepts.
To promote the cognition of concepts, representations, both internal and external, must be
provided such that the figurative gaps between them are narrow and can easily be bridged
by the individual. In addition, representations can serve a formative purpose. Each
student has a different mental structural content. It is thus the role of the instructor to
gauge or interpret the structural content of each student’s mind. Given such a window,
the instructor can provide (not necessarily directly) the external representations necessary
to allow the student to correctly internalize concepts without dictation through the use of
classroom discourse and the generation of verbal (discussion), written (minute papers,
other more formal papers), diagrammatic (graphs, figures, sketches, etc.), computer-
based, or other external representations from the instructor as well as from student peers.
As student internal representations develop and progress, more external representations
are solicited, begetting a cyclic development. It is important to note that students do not
necessarily have the skill set to synthesize an external representation provided by a peer
or instructor; the external representation may enhance their comprehension of a concept
without creating the ability to internalize that representation in those targeted for learning
and development.
The cognition of the student can be positively impacted through the connections
made between the student’s internal representations and the external representations in a
learning environment. As Greeno and Hall (1997) stated, “Forms of representation are
significant in the construction and communication of understanding,” (p. 122).
Therefore, it is important to establish similarities between the students’ existing
conceptualizations or cognitive structures of information (internal representations) and
17
the new concepts for which an instructor wishes to convey meanings through models
(external representations).
It is in this fashion that the effective use of representations in the classroom is
constructivist because “learning is possible if you base the more complex structure on
simpler structures, that is, when there is a natural relationship and development of
structures and not simply an external reinforcement” (Piaget, 2003, p. S16).
Representations, like the constructivism they stem from, are recursive and are also based
on Piagetian theory of continuous accommodation and assimilation.
The use of multiple representations in the classroom also invokes the Piagetian
developmental factor of experience. Piaget discusses two types of experience, physical
and logical-mathematical (2003, p. S11). Physical experience is empirical and deals with
the concrete and “acting upon objects and drawing some knowledge about the objects by
abstractions from the objects” (2003, p. S11). In logical-mathematical experience,
“knowledge is not drawn from the objects, but it is drawn by the actions effected upon
the objects” (2003, p. S11). To clarify, logical-mathematical experience is “an
experience of the actions of the subject, and not an experience of objects themselves”
(Piaget, 2003, p. S12). Eventually, the subject can perform such actions without the use
of the physical world or props, and can abstractly reason without the support of haptic or
otherwise reality-based interactions. Thus in the cycle of building and reconstructing
multiple internal and external representations, and internalizing external representations,
it is the inter-representational transformations of these understandings that provides
valuable experiences for the students that is most significant, not the actual media or
content of the representations.
18
Given that all students have different existing mental images, or schemas, and
unique cognitive structures, the presentation of multiple, varied representations allows the
concepts being represented to fit into the diverse cognitive frameworks in the minds of
more students. One size does not fit all, and presenting multiple, varied representations is
a fair response to the cognizance of different students with different learning needs and a
desire to fulfill as many of these needs as possible. Representations, both internal and
external, build on each other and are building blocks of constructivist learning.
Theoretical Implications
The Vygotskian implications of internalized construction of the history of external
experiences in the socio-cultural context, coupled with the scaffolding involved in the
Zone of Proximal Development are substantive. From this, any and all kinds of affective
socio-cultural support in the development of individuals are crucial. This includes
providing external representations to support the recursive development and advancement
of internal representations. The external representations provided in this case are
scaffolding in the form of three-dimensional animations of rotating objects in virtual
space on a computer screen.
The use of external representations in the form of virtual three-dimensional
animations of objects can serve to bridge gaps between students’ internal schemata of
how an object looks when rotated and how it should look two-dimensionally on paper or
on a computer screen. These viewing exercises also allow for students in the Piagetian
hypothetical-deductive fourth stage of cognitive development to gain what Piaget terms
logical-mathematical experience in the exercise of making the mental transformations
required to understand the provided external representation, while simultaneously

19
bridging aforementioned gaps in understanding resulting from potentially
underdeveloped projective spatial ability. Assimilation and accommodation continue
their cyclic structuring of knowledge through the mental operations performed on objects,
concrete or otherwise. These transformations continue to affect students in their final
cognitive stage of development, as well as in their projective spatial abilities.
Existing student spatial visualization ability is determined by genetics, life
experiences, and developmental activity. Spatial visualization abilities can be improved
through practice or further experiences in transforming object orientations in space.
Spatial visualization ability in individuals can be gauged through spatial visualization
tests. The major issues surrounding spatial visualization ability and the coupling of the
theoretical protocol are depicted in Figure 1.3.
Figure 1.3: Important spatial visualization concerns and theoretical protocol.
20
Throughout this investigation, student spatial visualization abilities prior to
instruction and after providing additional logical-mathematical experience in the form of
external, virtual, dynamic three-dimensional representations will be gauged to determine
the effects of these experiences on students. This investigation serves to seek evidence of
whether this Vygotskian scaffolding and Piagetian experience that result in mental
transformations from viewing the animations will significantly enhance performance on a
known metric of spatial visualization ability.
In addition, surveying students’ prior transformative experiences during the
Piagetian stages of cognitive development and spatial development shown by others
(Deno, 1995) to affect Piagetian projective spatial ability can point to the relationship
between these experiences and initial spatial visualization ability prior to treatment. A
gauge of these developmental experiences can also indicate the potential for more
substantive gains during instruction and treatment as a function of the magnitude of
developmental experiences. In other words, those students with a greater extent of these
developmental experiences would also be expected to have a greater Zone of Proximal
Development, and thus should have more to gain from the scaffolding provided.
Research in the areas of the utilization and necessity of spatial visualization skills
in life, specific experiences during development affecting spatial visualization abilities,
spatial visualization assessment methods, spatial visualization enhancement, and the use
of two-dimensional and virtual media to enhance spatial visualization skills is well
documented and crucial to this study. However these are extensive, and thus will be
discussed in depth in Chapter 2.
21
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Spatial visualization skills are critical for success in engineering education and
essential ingredients for student understanding. Spatial visualization ability is an
important characteristic for engineers to function properly in their professional and
academic careers (Sorby & Baartmans, 2000). A variety of metrics show that students
with superior visualization abilities perform better in engineering graphics as well as
other engineering curriculum classes (Yue, 2002).
Engineering graphics instructional teams strive to develop in students the
necessary visualization and graphical representation skills that allow them to express
ideas in the course of solving problems. Visualization has been defined as, “the ability to
take an idea from one’s mind and model it…”, and “...the ability to comprehend someone
else’s model” (Newcomer, et al., 2001, p. 33).
This chapter presents the historical perspective of engineering graphics
coursework, the significance of spatial visualization skills in engineering, spatial
visualization skills assessment methods, factors affecting spatial visualization ability,
alternatives to promoting good spatial visualization skills, and methods for enhancing
spatial visualization skills.
22
Historical Perspective
Engineering graphics remained relatively unchanged in the 20th century until the
early 1990’s evolution of the economically-accessible computer and software
technologies that brought computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided modeling
(CAM) to engineering classrooms. This affordability coupled with employer and student
demand led to the merging of traditional graphics with limited use of these technologies
in the classroom until the late 1990’s. Much of the focus remained on traditional manual
drawing tools such as triangles, T-squares, compasses, and calipers.
Today engineering graphics is much more student-friendly, integrated, and
preparatory. In recent years, researchers have investigated and repeatedly stressed the
need to change the manner in which engineering is introduced to pre-engineers (Bolton &
Morgan, 1997; Condoor, 1999; Morgan & Bolton, 1998). In many institutions with
engineering programs, integrated curricula incorporating an introduction to engineering,
engineering graphics and communication, technical writing, engineering technology
tools, engineering ethics, and teamwork have been proposed and implemented.
Typically in the past, more time was spent on individual work and lecture dealing
with the creation, projection, and manipulation of manually-drawn depictions of objects
and designs. Currently, more stress is placed on the learning styles of engineering
students, who tend to be more visual rather than verbal (Scribner & Anderson, 2005; The
Ohio State University College of Engineering, 2003). Modern engineering graphics,
often taught in “Introduction to Engineering,” “Fundamentals of Engineering,” “First-
Year Engineering,” or other similar titles, use a studio approach similar to the settings
found in art and architecture where students are arranged in teams to promote peer
23
instruction, more attention to physical space in the classroom arrangement, and term-
length design projects (Barr, Schmidt, Krueger, Twu, 2000; Little & Cardenas, 2001).
Significance of Spatial Visualization Skills in Engineering Education
The importance of promoting visualization is illustrated by Condoor (1999):
Visual thinking is one of the distinguishing characteristics of an engineer. At a

mundane level, it is useful for documenting ideas, representing designs, and
communicating them to others. At a more fundamental level, it helps reasoning
about ideas and designs. For instance, designers use visual thinking to reason
about stress, strain, fluid-flow, electric, and magnetic fields. Recognizing the
importance of visual thinking as a means of communication and a tool for
reasoning, educators have incorporated visual thinking throughout the engineering
curriculum. (p. 13).
One of the stated goals of the engineering graphics course should include a desire
to develop good spatial visualization skills in a student engineer. It is not only important
to stress spatial visualization skills at the introductory level, spatial visualization skills
should be emphasized throughout the engineering curriculum. Engineering instruction
should use spatial instructional strategies to reinforce student abilities (Hsi, et al., 1997).
Performance on exams in engineering and other technical fields of study shows that
scores are significantly correlated to spatial visualization ability. Academic failure is
shown to be related to deficiencies in two- and three-dimensional perceptional abilities
(Rochford, Fairall, Irving, Hurly, 1989).
Because spatial visualization skills are essential to engineers beginning and
graduating from engineering programs at colleges and universities, it is necessary to
promote spatial visualization skills either through remedial instruction at the collegiate
level or during the developmental periods prior to college. Given the need for technically
adept individuals during most economic periods, industry and academia cannot afford to
24
lose intellectually competent individuals due to a lack of nurturing of spatial visualization
abilities in developing students. Students who are competent in mathematics and other
subject areas often withdraw or simply do not select technical courses due to a lack of the
necessary spatial visualization skills and often, as a result, claim a general dislike for the
sciences and technical disciplines (Pallrand & Seeber, 1984). In addition, as engineers
are reputed problem solvers, spatial visualization skills are indispensable to engineers not
only because of the need to represent designs, but also because spatial visualization
ability is shown to be significantly correlated to problem solving ability (Carter, et al.,
1987). The importance of spatial visualization skills to engineers and others pursuing
technical fields are also highlighted by Scribner and Andersen (2005).
Assessing Visualization Skills
Tests of spatial visualization ability usually measure the subject’s skills by
requiring the completion of tasks demanding varying degrees of mental image rotation,
cutting, folding, or other alterations. Tasks that can only be performed by mental
alterations of given images are said to be holistic or non-analytic. Tasks that require
similar actions on images, but provide some verbal cue or can be accomplished
algorithmically, are said to be analytic or not completely holistic in nature. Many
researchers who wish to obtain a measurement of a subject’s pure spatial visualization
ability often avoid tests of spatial visualization that have verbal or analytic cues as the
results can be confounded by such features (Carter, et al., 1987). It is apparent that some
researchers tend to think that providing analytic aids such as verbal cues or
algorithmically-solvable problems allow the subject to “cheat” by foregoing his or her
visualization abilities.
25
There are a number of spatial visualization tests available that researchers in this
field often use as instruments for gauging spatial visualization abilities of students. The
Purdue Spatial Visualization Test: Rotations (PSVT—R) is the most commonly used test
of engineering students’ spatial visualization skills. The PSVT—R is often preferred
because it effectively measures raw spatial visualization skills while allowing for
minimal verbal, analytic, or otherwise non-holistic bias to affect the scoring of those
being tested (Carter, et al., 1987). This and other tests typically measure the visualization
skills of students at the second stage of the three stages of Piagetian spatial development
(Sorby & Baartmans, 1996). It is in the second stage of Piagetian spatial development,
referred to as projective representation, where humans develop the ability to mentally
perceive the appearance of objects from different perspectives and orientations (Bishop,
1978).
The Mental Rotations Test (MRT) is also a commonly used non-analytic test that
is similar to the PSVT—R in that it includes 24 problems to be solved via internal
rotation of mental imagery, but there are two correct answers per problem. The Paper
Folding Test (PFT), an analytical spatial test, asks the participant to determine which of
several choices of patterns on paper would result if the original piece of paper were hole-
punched and folded a number of times. The PFT and other tests are available in the “Kit
of Factor Referenced Cognitive Tests” from the Educational Testing Service in Princeton,
New Jersey (Lord, 1985; Pallrand & Seeber, 1984; Peters, et al., 1995). There are also
other tests either designed anew by researchers or that are alterations of the
aforementioned tests. The technologies used and the quality and not sightfulness of these
tests vary and are often dependent on the available resources of the researchers
26
performing the study. A compilation of spatial aptitude tests given over the years by
military, university, and other researchers in the twentieth century through the early
1980’s is provided by Eliot and Smith (1983).
In nearly all studies where gender is mentioned as a variable, a gap typically is
reported to exist between the spatial visualization test scores of men and women, with
women typically having significantly lower scores than men. In posttests, after the
subjects of studies are exposed to some form of spatial visualization instruction, the gap
narrows between those originally scoring lower (particularly women) and those originally
scoring higher (mostly men) during pretests (Branoff, 1998; Peters, et al., 1995; Sorby &
Baartmans, 1996).
Factors Affecting Spatial Visualization Ability
Some researchers of the 1960’s and early 1970’s suggest that spatial visualization
skills cannot be taught and are innate traits of individuals (Lord, 1985). More recent
studies show that spatial visualization skills can be improved through activities involving
spatial perception (Crown, 2001; Deno, 1995; Lord, 1985; Pallrand & Seeber, 1984;
Peters, et al., 1995; Sorby & Baartmans, 1996). When differences in male and female
performance are noted, the existing gender gap often found in pretests tends to close
following effective exercises of spatial visualization skills as evidenced in posttest results
(Hsi, et al., 1997; Peters, et al., 1995; Sorby & Baartmans, 1996). The closing of this gap
indicates that those with deficiencies in spatial visualization ability can make up for lost
time by exercising their skills in this area until their skill level matches those of their
peers. This is analogous to a weaker muscle gaining strength more rapidly than regularly
worked muscles in the body and is a valid application of the ubiquitous “learning curve.”
27
The question then inevitably arises regarding the source of spatial visualization
deficiencies. To answer, the factors affecting visual spatial ability need to be determined.
Researchers suggest that previous experiences such as actions performed on objects in
space stimulate adolescents to develop spatial visualization skills (Bishop, 1978). Socio-
cultural factors such as childhood activities involving construction games and toys, art
and sketching, video games, sports, and tactile experiences with concrete objects are
among the influences listed by researchers (Pallrand & Seeber, 1984; Peters, et al., 1995;
Yue, 2002). These are qualitative observations grounded in experience, but can be
speculative and tend to appear in the last sentences of research papers, seemingly as an
afterthought. The constructivist argument that, “Each of us makes sense of our world by
synthesizing new experiences into what we have previously come to understand” (Brooks
& Brooks, 1999, p. 4), supports the importance of experience in making increasingly
complex understandings.
One study in particular quantitatively compares the scores of subjects who took a
spatial visualization test to an inventory of activities in which the subjects participated
during their pre-collegiate development (Deno, 1995). This study employed two research
tools. The Mental Rotations Test (MRT), used to measure spatial visualization ability,
consists of 20 criterion figures for which there are two correct alternatives and two
incorrect alternatives. The Spatial Experience Inventory (SEI), developed by the
researcher and based on a list of spatial activities compiled through research done by
Guay et. al, (Guay, 1977; Guay, McDaniel, & Angelo, 1978; Guay & McDaniel, 1979,
1982; McDaniel, Guay, Ball, & Kolloff, 1978) is comprised of a list of activities, the
frequency each activity occurred, and the time period during the student’s development
28
that each activity occurred. The SEI is comprised of 312 items. These items fall into
three possible categories: Formal Academic, Non-academic, and Sports activities. Each
activity can be placed in the following developmental periods: junior high school, high
school, postsecondary; pre-school, elementary organized, elementary non-organized. The
sample consisted of 396 beginning engineering students enrolled in Engineering Graphics
166 during Winter Quarter of 1993 at the Ohio State University. Of the 396 students, 324
were men and 72 were women. ANOVA was used to confirm statistical significance of
mean differences between groups, reliability analysis was conducted on the SEI, and
correlation analysis was conducted between predictors and spatial measures. The SEI
spatial ability groups were shown to be highly reliable, as were the elements of the
developmental period scale with the exception of the elementary organized activities. It
was shown through an analysis using Pearson product-moment correlation that Non-
academic activities during high school seem to be the strongest predictor of ability in
spatial visualization.
The inventory not only is a catalog of the various activities in which the
participants had previously engaged, it also relates the developmental time period of each
activity, as well as whether that activity was academic, organized, or unorganized in
nature. The findings confirm most of the other researchers’ quantitative assessments of
the importance of life experiences in predicting one’s current spatial visualization
abilities. The study shows that building activities (non-academic during high school and
middle school) are the most correlated to high spatial visualization skills for men.
Women with higher spatial visualization skills most commonly have frequent video game
and educational program viewing experiences. This difference in activities between men
29
and women answers some questions about the gender gap dilemma as it pertains to
spatial visualization ability. Notably, those women with the greater than average building
activity experiences have correlations to higher spatial visualization ability, but visual
activities still seem to be more correlated to this phenomenon in females.
Alternatives to Promoting Good Visualization Skills
Some may say that development of spatial visualization skills is not as necessary
as it was before the advent of affordable technology tools such as computer-aided design
and modeling (e.g., CAD and CAM). As discussed earlier, however, spatial visualization
skills are not just requisite of object and design depiction. They are also significantly
correlated to problem-solving ability and performance in the sciences. Koch (2006)
found that spatial visualization skills, as tested by the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test—
Rotations, significantly predicted technical problem solving ability, yet found no
significant difference in problem solving ability between students using manual drawing
tools versus solid modeling.
There are students who may struggle through engineering graphics courses by
blindly following analytic procedures or algorithms in the course of providing alternate
representations to objects and designs. Once again, it is important to note that this
approach towards (or avoidance of) a skill deficiency is not a viable solution given the
possibility and value of remediation in the area of spatial visualization ability (Sorby &
Baartmans, 1996). Placement exams prove effective in properly placing students in
courses for which they are adequately prepared (Sorby & Young, 1998). Students with
the necessary spatial visualization skills can be placed in regular graphics courses, while
others who do not possess the prerequisite skill set can be placed in remedial courses
30
designed to enhance their spatial visualization skills and prepare them for engineering
graphics and the remaining engineering curriculum for which possession of these skills is
essential.
Finally, it should be reemphasized that poor performance in and withdrawal from
courses in technical fields of study are correlated to deficiencies in spatial visualization
ability (Carter, et al., 1987; Pallrand & Seeber, 1984; Rochford, et al., 1989). This
further highlights the importance of spatial visualization skills, particularly in
engineering.
Enhancing Visualization Skills
Spatial visualization skills can be honed in various ways. The most common
methods involve the presentation of a variety of different representations of objects. The
simplest and oldest of these are concrete representations such as wooden blocks cut to a
size and shape to be depicted graphically by the student. These are still in use in
classrooms today.
Stackable cubes were successfully used in a study concerning the effects of a
remedial course on students with deficiencies in spatial visualization skills (Sorby &
Baartmans, 1996). In this study, a pre-graphics course was developed and piloted in
1993 at the Michigan Technological University for the purpose of providing remedial
experience in 3-D spatial visualization skills for students scoring low on a spatial
visualization placement test. The new course utilized a text and computer lab manual,
written for the course, and I-DEAS software as a visualization tool. Of 535 students who
took the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test: Rotations (PSVT—R) placement test, 117
(22%) were women. Of the 96 students who failed (scored less than 60% correct) 46
31
(39.3%) were women. From the 96 students who failed, 24 were selected to participate in
the pre-graphics course as members of the experimental group. The average PSVT—R
score for this group was only 51% correct. Their average score on the PSVT—R as a
post-test was 86% with no students failing. There was a statistically significant increase
in scores between the pre- and post-test (t=12.53, p<0.0001). Student comments were
generally positive. The spatial visualization tools used all received an overwhelming
majority of ratings in the positive area when students were polled. A majority of students
also claimed they “learned a lot” from the course.
The remaining 72 students comprised the control group and were permitted to
enroll in the standard engineering graphics course. The grade point averages in
engineering graphics courses between the experimental and control groups were
compared. The average student grade point average for the experimental group was 3.0
whereas the average grade point average for the control group was 2.6. Low grades (C,
D, or F) occurred in only 8.3% of the engineering graphics grades received by the
experimental group as compared to 16.3% of the control group students (Sorby &
Baartmans, 1996).
Engineering graphics instructors often use multiple external representations in the
course of strengthening their students’ skills through providing multiple perspectives and
imagery of the same objects. These representations range from concrete, wooden models
of objects to be depicted on paper, standard two- and three-dimensional paper depictions,
to technology-driven depictions on a computer screen that can be rotated and manipulated
through mouse and keyboard commands. This approach also helps reach a wider
audience of students who, as individuals, have distinct cognitive structures and existing
32
mental schemas with which these visualization concepts must mesh (Friedlander &
Tabach, 2001).
Virtual Three-dimensional Remediation
Engineering graphics instructors can look at the examples provided by other
science and technical educators. Dynamic computer-based representations and dynamic
computer-based translation between representations through computer animation and
modeling of molecular structures have been shown to be valuable in improving the
spatial visualization skills and understanding of subject matter concepts in chemistry
courses (Barnea & Dori, 1999). Animation has also been used to some benefit by
mathematics education researchers, where “animated learning materials can prove more
useful than static representations” (Taylor, Pountney, Malabar, 2007, p. 249) in topics
such as rotational symmetry and matrices.
While computer-based representations are already in use by many engineering
graphics departments, when one considers that most computer-based engineering
graphics representation systems were contrived for design and not educational purposes
(e.g., CAD software packages), they are not as instructionally suited as those employed in
other fields of science. However, one innovative example serves as a cutting plane
simulator which is also a software tool that interfaces with AutoCAD that is taught to
upperclassmen in mechanical and manufacturing engineering. Named 3D-Sim, it utilizes
an AutoLISP program (interpreted by AutoCAD). Huang, Bhura, and Wang (2000)
examined this commercially-available tool. Their primary application was for its
originally intended purpose, simulating the cutting of material from stock to form a new
finished object in a virtual environment without the inconveniences and expenses of

33
setting up a laboratory around an expensive Numerical Control (NC) machine and
maintaining the equipment.
An alternate application of this software tool for pre-engineers enrolled in
engineering graphics courses can be pursued. Rather than focus on the NC aspects of the
simulation, simply program the simulator to sequentially remove material from the virtual
stock to depict to the students the formation of a new 3-dimensional object. A simulated
object in AutoCAD that utilizes 3D-Sim can thus be formed, rotated, and manipulated to
display an infinite number of static or dynamic representations. This process may
provide additional means for connecting and reconstructing students’ internal
representations and spatial understandings of objects in the course of their engineering
graphics studies.
Web-based interactive engineering graphics educational applications have been
shown to be effective (Crown, 2001). Through the presentation of a series of puzzles
students are challenged to solve, they interactively learn engineering graphics
conventions and are promptly corrected with feedback if they do not solve a problem or
answer a question correctly. In this sense, web-based scaffolding is provided for students
as they progress through the exercises toward more difficult challenges. This
instructional tool allows students to learn conventions and develop their spatial
visualization skills without having to simultaneously learn the numerous functions and
commands of a sophisticated CAD package normally used by professionals.
MBLs are used with sensors and a computer to collect data and display it
graphically on a computer screen. In a study by Kozhevnikov and Thornton (2006), the
use of microcomputer-based labs (MBLs) to provide undergraduate physics students with
34
real-time experimental data graphing, was shown to significantly increase the proportion
of correctly solved spatial visualization problems of the Paper Folding Test (p<0.05)
when science and non-science major treatment groups were compared to a science major
control group via pre- to post-test gains. The researchers examined the proportion of
correctly solved problems rather than simply total scores because all groups were able to
attempt more problems the second time they took the PFT, perhaps due to a test-retest
effect of familiarity where test takers learn the test when the time between identical pre-
and post-tests is too short. The authors credit Lohman (1988) for information on the test-
retest effect in other studies. It is notable, however, that an entire semester elapsed
between tests and the test-retest effect may not be so significant.
In another related study, the same authors (Kozhevnikov & Thornton, 2006)
performed the same test with high school physics and science teachers to determine if
significant increases can be detected in those with strong physics and science
backgrounds. The intention was to alleviate concerns that science or physics instruction
also causes some spatial visualization development. Using a paired t-test, the teachers
showed significant improvements both in total scored (p<0.001) and number correct
(p<0.001), however apparently there was no control group used, and the test-retest effect
may have been even stronger due to the only two weeks between pre- and post-tests.
Scribner and Anderson’s (2005) substantial literature review and study yielded
three recommendations, one of which promotes the use of several types of two-
dimensional renderings to reinforce spatial visualization skills:
Incorporate tools such as sketching, three dimensional handheld models, three-

dimensional solid model software, and orthographic and isometric projections to
aid in developing spatial visualization. (p. 56)
35
In their study, the control group received standard, traditional drafting instruction,
whereas the treatment group received mixed methods instruction and materials to
accommodate a variety of student learning styles. More treatment group students showed
significant (greater than 5) increases in their PSVT—R scores than those of the control
group.
Piburn, Reynolds, and McAuliffe (2005) conducted a study using computer
software “which allows the creation of detailed and realistic, two-dimensional
representations depicting three-dimensional perspectives of simple and complex geologic
structures and landscapes” (p. 517) for use by geology college student subjects. Using
two control and two treatment groups, spatial orientation pre- and post-tests showed no
significant effect. However, spatial visualization pre- and post-test scores on the Surface
Development Test and time to complete the tests showed significant improvement. This
demonstrates the potential effectiveness of two-dimensional virtual computer-based
renderings of three-dimensional objects for increasing spatial visualization abilities.
Relevant to these results, it is noteworthy that Hegarty and Waller (2004) found further
evidence that spatial orientation (different viewpoints or perspectives), while correlated,
are dissociated with spatial visualization (mental rotation). Kwon (2003) demonstrated
that both paper-based and web-based virtual reality instruction given to groups of middle
school students can be effective in improving spatial visualization skills.
Third graders in control and treatment groups were tested on mental rotation skills
to determine whether those in the treatment group, playing video games, would show
increases in spatial visualization abilities over control group members (De Lisi &
36
Wolford, 2002). It was shown that computer-based activities or the use of virtual media
can result in increased spatial visualization ability.
Similarly, Dorval and Pepin (1986) were able to show spatial visualization test
score gains in pre- and post-test scores by undergraduate students in the humanities after
playing the video game Zaxxon for eight sessions over a six week period at five plays per
session. At the time, Zaxxon was unique for its three-dimensional presentation and depth
which consisted of a spaceship flying diagonally through an isometric world as there
were no vanishing points as in many modern three-dimensional video games. Most
spatial visualization tests involving mental rotation present objects in an isometric format.
Gerson, Sorby, Wysocki, and Baartmans (2001) found that “multimedia software
is an effective tool for the development of 3-D spatial skills” (p. 111). After developing a
nine-piece modular software package with a National Science Foundation grant, they
found through quizzing, surveying, and various spatial visualization tests, significant
improvements in students who used the software over those who did not.
The sampling of work provided above and others that have been documented
elsewhere provide evidence indicating the viability of technology-based virtual three-
dimensional animated renderings in improving spatial visualization ability.
Technology-based virtual three-dimensional animated renderings used to improve
spatial visualization ability should be customizable to problems in the curriculum, should
not require additional purchases by engineering graphics and first-year programs, should
be easy to implement and retrofit in universities with online curriculum aids such as
Blackboard, WebCT, or Desire2Learn, should not take additional class time, should not
require special software as it is a video (AVI) file, and should be used in an on-demand
37
basis. Given the goal of using convenient and readily available technological tools to
enhance spatial visualization skills with minimal additional institutional investment of
resources, it is important to survey the literature to assess the feasibility and validity of
providing effective, remedial spatial visualization activities through the use of dynamic
external representations via CAD-derived animations of objects projected on a computer
screen.
Problem-based Learning
Problem-based learning can be a very important tool in educating future
engineers. It not only applies as a method of teaching; it also simultaneously provides
experiences and development of abilities and skills for young pre-engineers in the process
of problem solving. According to Wilkerson and Gijselaers (1996), problem-based
learning is defined as a student-centered process that occurs in small groups of which
teachers are the facilitators or guides. Problems presented in some form such as a written
case, case vignette, simulation of a real-life subject or computer simulation represent the
challenges faced in practice and therefore provide relevance to form the organizing focus
and stimulus for learning. Such problems also provide for the development of clinical
problem solving skills and the means through which abilities can be acquired through
self-directed learning. In this application, the problem could be one demanding the
exercise of spatial visualization skills in a term-length design project.
In engineering graphics, the majority of the coursework involves student
utilization of various visualization and graphical communication skills and abilities
applied to the solving of problems. Due to the number of topics covered and the limited
amount of time available, many of these problems are simple, lecture-based cases (Savin-
38
Baden 2000). These involve problems assigned to the students after some preliminary
information on the approaches relevant to solving the problem and the uses and
applications for the skills gained through practicing the solution of similar problems. The
routine problems occur in lecture and also in lab, although the labs are a bit more open-
ended. Far less frequently, perhaps only once during the course, a project such as
building a balsawood bridge is given to the students.
Implications
Engineers are typically seen as “problem solvers.” The field of engineering can
no longer afford to have its ranks filled by people learning and applying a fixed body of
knowledge. This ignores the exponentially increasing body of technical knowledge,
technological advancements, and emerging problems associated with the burgeoning
progress and expansion of humanity.
It is necessary that engineering professionals today, as demanded by both public
and private sectors, have the ability to adapt and apply readily accessible resources in a
manner relevant to solving unique problems. They also must satisfactorily complete a
variety of projects through the use of teams and interactions with groups of people, thus
requiring the use of effective verbal, written, and visual communication. This supports
the use of problem-based learning in engineering. In case of enhancing spatial
visualization skills in engineers, while it is not possible to have students practice every
possible situation requiring spatial visualization skills, it is possible to exercise skills with
general problems that could be applied to a variety of future situations in engineering
academics, as well as in the engineering profession. From the research and revelations of
others interested in problem-based learning and engineering education, it has been

39
demonstrated that problem-based learning is very relevant and applicable to the education
of future engineers in the area of spatial visualization as well as other areas.
Another commonly practiced method for enhancing spatial visualization skills
involves providing analytic methods such as verbal cues and algorithms for translating
from one representation to another. While these may help some students eventually make
the leap from a reliance on analytic methods to holistic methods through repeatedly
seeing one representation translate to another, these practices may also allow students to
habitually use the analytic methods as a crutch. As a consequence, there is always a
concern that the students are not necessarily honing their spatial visualization skills but
are in effect blindly following algorithmic procedures.
Summary
Spatial visualization skills are essential for success in engineering and the
sciences. Focus should be placed on developing spatial visualization ability during the
developmental years of students through activities involving building, tactile
manipulation of objects, transformations between internal and external representations,
and other tasks to reinforce these skills. Remediation should be provided at the collegiate
level as necessary to decrease student attrition rates in science and engineering and
improve general student performance in their curricula. Spatial visualization skills are
also related to problem-solving ability. Lack of high spatial visualization capabilities on
the part of entering freshman students at the postsecondary level may be a predictor of
those students’ selection of non-technical programs of study. It is therefore imperative
that tools be made available to hone and/or remediate the spatial visualization skills of
engineers and engineers-to-be.

40
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY, DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Spatial visualization skills are requisite for the academic and professional success
of engineers. Studies show that spatial visualization skills can be improved through
direct and indirect instruction, as well as through the use of modern technology. External
remedial efforts are shown to be effective, as are engineering graphics courses in
improving spatial visualization test scores. Some students enter college wishing to be
engineers, but score below average on spatial visualization tests. Because spatial
visualization test scores may be indicative of future academic and professional success in
engineering, it is important for engineers to be competent in spatial visualization. This
study seeks to use existing resources commonly available to first-year engineering
programs or engineering graphics departments. By using existing computer-aided design
(CAD) software to build instructional tools in the form of virtual 3-D animations of
objects, first-year engineering students in need of spatial visualization improvement can
enhance their skills while minimally taxing departmental or program resources.
Providing such instructional assistance on an open-access basis allows willing students to
take ownership of their own improvement while minimally disrupting direct instruction
and requiring minimal further investment in curriculum development.
All of the resources utilized in the development of the instructional tool and data
collection devices or their equivalents can be found at most engineering colleges. In this
41
study, only resources readily available at The Ohio State University were used. Thus,
one objective and feature of the developments discussed here is to allow for the
integration of these approaches with most typical first-year or engineering graphics
programs. The instructional tool developed and studied, as well as the data collection
methods and research design integration with the existing online university-wide course
curriculum and grading web application can be applied elsewhere in a similar manner as
presented here.
Participants
The participants were first-year engineering students taking the first course of the
Introduction to Engineering series (ENG 181) at The Ohio State University in the First-
year Engineering Program. The participants were selected based on the section of
introductory engineering graphics course sections in which they were enrolled. There
were a potential maximum of 216 students in each of the control and experimental
groups, each group comprising an entire treatment level for a total of approximately 432
students from six sections (12 labs). The actual number of students who enrolled and
completed the course was 396, however only 273 provided consent and completed the
course.
Instruments
The Purdue Spatial Visualization Test – Rotations, was administered to gauge
spatial visualization ability. The PSVT—R has been used to log student visualization
data for several years at the First-Year Engineering Program and is therefore ideal for this
study as a course of convenience, in addition to the reasons involving avoiding
42
confounding with non-holistic mental rotation methods problematic of other spatial
visualization measures (Bodner & Guay, 1997) and is deemed a good test (Yue & Chen,
2001). The PSVT—R consists of 30 problems each involving a depicted object and
instructions to rotate that object a certain number of degrees (multiples of 90) around one
or more axes. The participant is given a choice of four possible responses, only one of
which correctly represents the figure’s new orientation. The PSVT—R is integrated with
the online gradebook for all sections of ENG 181, and has access windows that span the
beginning and end of the quarter. A copy of the online version of the PSVT—R is
available in Appendix A.
The Likert-type Experience survey was an augmented version of the “Journal
Entry 1,” already in existence, to collect Experience data. Journal Entry 1 is the first in a
series of five online surveys the students are required to complete. These surveys query
students on their impressions of the class, coursework, difficulty level of the assigned
work, and the instructional team’s performance. The responses to these questions are
quantified into a continuous rather than categorical Experience score, where each of the
ten questions represents an integer value of 1 through 5, ranging from “Never” to
“Always”, respectively. Thus a total composite experience score of 10 to 50 is possible.
The Likert-type scale Experience questions are also shown fully formatted in Appendix
B. The 10 Likert-type Experience score questions are also listed here with labels in
parentheses.
1. How often have you engaged in drafting, design and design sketching,
engineering graphics, or other manual (by hand) technical drawing
activities? (DRAFTING)
43
2. How often have you constructed models or played with building blocks,
Legos, Lincoln Logs, or other similar stackable toys? (MODELS)
3. How often have you played sports? (SPORTS)
4. How often have you fixed things, with a parent, guardian, other mentor, or
on your own, such as working on a car, home improvements, construction,
carpentry, electronics, or other similar activities? (HOME
IMPROVEMENT)
5. How often have you engaged in creating artwork (drawing, graphic
design, painting, 3D art, photography, etc.)? (ART)
6. How often have you played video games? (VIDEO GAMES)
7. How often have you used Computer Aided Design (CAD) software
applications such as AutoCAD, SolidWorks, Autodesk Inventor, or
others? (CAD)
8. How often have you played musical instruments or composed music?
(MUSIC)
9. How often have you engaged in crafts (sewing, homemade decorations,
pottery, etc.)? (CRAFTS)
10. How often have you used maps or navigated in a car, navigated while
hiking, etc.? (NAVIGATION)
Students were emailed an open-ended survey inquiring as to their impressions,
attitudes, and usage of the visualization tool. A copy of the survey and focus group
invitation is included in Appendix C. A listing of the survey questions follows.
44
1. Were you aware of the animated instructional tool available on Carmen on a trial
basis in ENG 181 in WI08? If not, you do not have to answer the remaining
questions.
2. How did you hear of the availability of the animations?
3. Were you able to access to the animations for the daily assignment problems?
4. How did you gain access to the tool, if it was not available through your own
login? (No worries, you’re not in any trouble!)
5. Do you know of others who did not have access via their own login that also were
able to somehow gain access?
6. Why did you stop using the animations?
7. Did you find the animations useful? In what ways?
8. Did you believe you needed help visualizing or understanding how objects appear
after rotation or orientation change of the objects from their initial states? If so,
please specify if you had trouble with: visualizing isometric drawings, visualizing
orthographic drawings, the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test, exam problems
involving drawings, or something else.
9. Do you believe that viewing the animations helped you understand how an object
in an isometric view looks when rotated to an orthographic view?
in an orthographic view looks when rotated to an isometric view?
11. Do you believe that viewing the animations helped you generally understand how
an object would look when rotated from one position or orientation to another? In
other words, were you able to better understand, “see,” or mentally visualize how
45
an object would appear, would be drawn, or would be depicted if it was rotated or
given a new orientation from its initial state?
12. How would you improve this instructional tool to make it more useful for future
students?
Treatment
A CAD-based 3-D animated model of existing, assigned, paper-based engineering
graphics problems was made available for students to view during engineering graphics
homework assignments to determine if this can be used as an instructional tool that
enables students to enhance their spatial visualization skills. Students were either granted
access to the tool, or not. Two possible treatments were analyzed. Those given access
are compared to those who were not given access to the tool. Analyses invoking a tool
utilization considerations including the amount of time the tool was used, number of
times the tool was used, and whether or not the tool was used at all, are used to gauge
absolute tool effectiveness. Analyses ignoring the utilization are also applied to gauge
real-world open access tool effectiveness.
The animations were developed by building existing manual engineering graphics
drawing assignments in AutoDesk Inventor. They were then imported into
“Presentation” mode and rotated from a starting isometric view to one of three
orthographic views and back to the original isometric view again by specifying angles of
rotation on relevant axes. The animations were recorded as AVI-type files to ensure wide
compatibility with user media player software. These animations are viewable on the
internet at http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v221/yallam/ENG181WI08Animations/.
Each object has three associated animations, one for each orthographic view that would
46
normally be depicted by the students. The assignments included those typical of
manually-drawn engineering graphics assignments: drawing orthographic views given an
isometric view of an object, drawing an isometric view given orthographic views of an
object, missing edge lines, and drawing a missing orthographic view. These assignments
are included in Appendix D.
Procedures
The Ohio State University’s online course and grading web application, Carmen,
was made available to the investigators via Carmen course designer access. Carmen is an
online course grade and resource web application by Desire2Learn, similar to Blackboard
or WebCT. Students rely heavily on this web application for content such as syllabi,
daily assignment schedules, presentation slides, drawing tools and orthographic and
isometric paper for printing should they deplete their own supplies, lab information, exam
review materials, etcetera. There are also periodic quizzes and surveys with adjustable
windows of availability. There are links to external resources, and important course-
related news and reminders. With the granted designer permissions, access groups were
formed for each lab section, representing the externally randomly generated control and
treatment groups. Students designated as treatment group members were granted access
to the animation tools. Others were denied access. Access windows were set such that,
based on the daily assignment schedule, treatment group students were granted access to
the relevant animation upon assignment. Access to these animations closed the day after
the assignment’s due date. The assignment schedule, or “Daily Assignment List,” is
provided in Appendix E.
47
The entire study occurred within the existing Carmen course framework for ENG
181. All test scores, assignment grades, and survey data were already available and
automatically saved as records to Carmen gradebooks. Existing online surveys were
augmented to collect the Likert-type scale experiential data (Experience). Tool access
was provided via selective release hyperlinks to participants randomly selected from
course sections. Existing Carmen-generated unique student identification numbers were
used to protect student identities. These numbers are randomly generated and were not
associated with sensitive university records and serve only as unique gradebook markers.
All data were downloadable from Carmen as comma separated value files for
manipulation within spreadsheet software applications. Student email addresses and
names were the only identifying fields of data within grade records. These were retained
for the sole purpose of allowing for post-study consent form processing and matching
data records originating from different sources with varying formats. At the end of the
course, permission, using the standard written consent form to use the survey data, tool
usage statistics, class assignments and exam scores for the purpose of research was
distributed and collected once the students completed the forms. Once the study
concluded and the consent forms were processed, all identifying data were stripped.
Only those individuals who gave consent had their corresponding data used for the
purposes of the research study.
Students enrolled in Engineering 181, Fundamentals of Engineering (ENG 181)
course sections in Winter 2008 (WI08) were given an online version of the Purdue
Spatial Visualization Test—Rotations (PSVT—R) as a pre-test. They also completed a
survey, in this case an augmented version of the “Journal Entry 1,” already in existence,
48
to collect Experience data. Students were surveyed via ten five-point Likert-type scale
questions at the beginning of the quarter and asked to indicate, by their own estimations,
their levels of participation in certain activities prior to enrolling in an engineering degree
program in college to determine a relationship, if any, to initial scores on spatial
visualization tests administered at the beginning of the quarter. The experience
quantified via a five-point Likert-type scale experiential survey (Experience) includes ten
questions posed concerning student developmental activities that research has shown to
be correlated to spatial visualization ability (Deno, 1995). These experience levels are
also used to gauge Experience effects on gains made during exposure to both regular
classroom activities as well as regular classroom activities coupled with the 3-D
animation tool being tested.
Enrollees were not informed of the study in advance to protect study validity and
to simulate the voluntary nature of online instructional tool usage. An email was sent
discreetly to treatment group members to alert them of the forthcoming availability of an
experimental instructional tool with limited access. They were told how to access this
tool and a vague description of the purpose of this covert activity. Their confidentiality
was requested. Those randomly selected as treatment group participants were granted
instructional tool access via links on the “Content” page of the Carmen course web
application. These links selectively opened for treatment group participants when the
relevant engineering graphics drawing is assigned, and closed after the due date of the
assignment. Link access tracking in Carmen is built into the application, so utilization
data were available for each treatment group participant. Much of the participant data
were stored within the Carmen gradebook with key exceptions detailed later.
49
At the conclusion of study, coinciding with the conclusion of the WI08 term,
students took the PSVT—R post-test. The spatial visualization test, PSVT—R, was
already utilized by the First-Year Engineering Program at The Ohio State University
College of Engineering for internal purposes.
Per Institutional Review Board (IRB) suggestion, the study was treated as an
internal investigation, as the data collected is typical of quarterly activities, with the
addition of the devices described throughout this chapter. Consent scripts were read at
the end of the quarter and consent forms were distributed and collected during the final
class period. These are available in Appendix F. Non-published, internal research for
departmental or program continuous improvement in accepted educational settings for
purposes of gauging student performance or instructional methods may follow the
approaches outlined here without IRB approval, but this should be confirmed with the
researcher’s local Institutional Review Board to avoid any uncertainty on this issue.
Due to the nature of the treatment group participants’ voluntary usage of the tool,
a tool utilization covariate is included in the statistical model. Analyses invoking
animation tool utilization consideration are used to gauge absolute tool effectiveness,
while analyses ignoring the utilization are also applied to gauge real-world open access
tool effectiveness. The comparison occurs between pre- and post-tests administered
respectively at the beginning and end of the ten-week term in the First-Year Engineering
Program at The Ohio State University. Pre-tests are used to gauge initial student ability
levels in spatial visualization, and performance on post-tests are used to gauge the
magnitude of gains that can be expected from students of varying skill levels with the
standard instruction, as compared to instruction augmented with the use of the CAD-
50
based 3-dimensional animations. Extensions to this study were made using data collected
through the course of the academic quarter. These extensions serve to identify
relationships, if evident, between pre-test scores or instructional tool utilization and
grades in visualization (Drawing) and non-visualization-related (non-Drawing) items.
These extensions also serve to confirm the link between summarized student
developmental experiences and their initial spatial visualization test scores.
Finally, the significance, if any, between student visualization test scores and
relevant engineering graphics-related grades are determined. The final data collected
were open-ended survey responses regarding both treatment and control student
impressions, suggestions, and usage patterns of the tool, if any. They were also queried
regarding access to the tool and knowledge of the tool, especially for control group
subjects who should not have had access to these animations.
Research Design
The research design is an experimental design with control and treatment groups
where the treatment group receives access to a virtual 3-dimensional visualization tool
that offers an additional representation of objects to be depicted in assigned engineering
graphics drawing problems.
Sample and Initial Calculations
A randomized complete block design was used where one half of each block was
randomly selected for designation of control or treatment. Initial sample size calculations
assumed a conservative standard deviation of 5.3 based on the post-test spatial
51
visualization data from one section in Autumn 2006, a typical power value of 0.8 and an
alpha value for testing at 0.05.
With 12 blocks and 2 treatments, the analysis is equivalent to a one-way ANOVA
with 24 (12 x 2) treatments. For a sample size of 18 per treatment x block combination,
power = 0.8, alpha = 0.05, the detectable difference in visualization test scores would be
8.5. However, there are several offerings of the course per quarter, all using the same
equipment, materials, time, and other resources, with the distinction being the times of
the offerings and the human resources involved in instruction. An instructor teaches one
or two offerings in the same lecture classroom. Each offering, at a unique time of day, is
divided into two sections, where each section has a unique Graduate Teaching Associate
and undergraduate Peer Mentor. Therefore, each section is unique only in the sense that
it has a unique instructional team and meeting time. The model addresses the course
section inconsistencies by blocking the course sections to accommodate variations caused
by attributes such as instructional staff and time. Since the course sections are the blocks,
there is no interest in detecting differences between blocks. There is, however, interest in
detecting treatment differences. In this case, the analysis is equivalent to a 1-way
ANOVA with 2 treatment levels. For this scenario, there would be enough observations
per group (216) to detect visualization test score differences as small as 1.43, assuming
maximum enrollment. Alternatively, to detect a difference as small as 2 one would need
at least 112 for treatment and 112 for control across all sections.
With nearly 400 projected students, it was deemed there was an adequate sample
to meet a pre-test to post-test gain standard of two points. Again, there is no interest in
detecting block differences. They are considered nuisance effects. There is a need to
52
control for them, but they are not of primary interest. A one-way ANOVA power curve
illustrates the pre-test/post-test gain sensitivity in Figure 3.1.
Power Curve for One-way ANOVA

1.0
Sample
Size
112
0.8 A ssumptions
A lpha 0.05
S tD ev 5.3
# Lev els 2
0.6
Power
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 1 2 3 4
Maximum Difference
Figure 3.1: Power curve for one-way ANOVA, n=112, α=0.05, σ=5.3.
While the preliminary sample analysis assumes six sections at two blocks
per section (one for each unique lab/Graduate Teaching Associate) and 36 students per
block, sample size, and as a result the number of blocks, are dependent upon student
enrollment, that is, the number of sections of students enrolled in a given quarter. It was
also considered likely that the blocks and treatments would be unbalanced.
53
Underlying Considerations
This study was approached not just as an investigation, but as a simulation of how
an indirect, digital instructional tool can be implemented and gauged for effectiveness.
The successful administration and documentation of this study may lead to its use as a
roadmap for the investigation and installation of future indirect, open access instructional
aids available to students on an as-needed basis. Of substantial note is the effort to
minimize disturbances to classes and disruptions in instruction of the course sections
containing the subjects in all phases of the design, integration, and throughout the course
of the study. A background but significant objective of this study involved the seamless
integration and application of the various devices for data collection, control/treatment
separation, and provisions for the spatial visualization tool itself.
Students already take several surveys throughout the quarter for internal
continuous improvement uses. It is for this reason that the types of activities identified
by other researchers as having significant correlation to spatial visualization abilities
were abbreviated or summarized from hundreds of items in survey batteries. There was a
concern that students would not take the time to carefully answer too numerous a battery
of Experience questions when considering the other feedback they are already expected
to provide in the course. There was also a concern of disturbing course activities or
overtaxing student time during a course which already requires of the students substantial
time and commitment for success.
After the end of the quarter, students were emailed open-ended surveys inquiring
as to their impressions, attitudes, and usage of the visualization tool. They were also
54
solicited for a focus group session to discuss their thoughts around a table, featuring pizza
as an incentive.
Data Collection and Parsing Devices
Data Logs
One of the features of Carmen is an ongoing log it keeps of student activity. The
activity log includes access information to each object by users in each course section.
Data logged includes last visit time and date, number of visits to each item, and total time
spent with a particular object open. This information is typically of no concern to most
faculty members, and it is available only in a raw, cryptic format through special request
to the University’s Office of Information Technology (OIT). Upon request, OIT was able
to provide a listing formatted as comma-separated-values, accessible via Microsoft Excel,
but still not readily usable in this format.
PSVT—R scores for each student are automatically logged into the Carmen
gradebook upon completion alongside all other grades automatically collected by the
Carmen system or more often manually entered by Graduate Teaching Associates.
Student grades are all available via Carmen export to comma-separated-value file, as this
is the primary grade recording, processing, and calculation device used by the First-Year
Engineering Program. Data imported from the Carmen gradebook were readily
compatible and properly formatted and oriented for data analysis. Course grades and
PSVT—R test scores were concatenated into a master spreadsheet, with additional fields
added to designate lab, section, instructional team, and meeting time information.
Additional details, such as problem-by-problem exam scores, were collected separately
55
by Graduate Teaching Associates and compiled by personnel in the First-Year
Engineering Program. Copies of the relevant visualization-related exam problems are
provided in Appendix G. Additional calculations, such as separating heavily
visualization-dependant assignments from others were done subsequently by formulae
applied to grade components imported into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. These results
were combined again and checked against original Carmen grade totals to ensure validity.
Other Data
Other pieces of data required for the analysis had to be parsed, properly oriented,
and concatenated to this master spreadsheet manually or through Visual Basic (VB)
macro and Structured Query Language (SQL) script from other spreadsheets and
relational database tables. Problem-by-problem exam data described in the previous
section were appended manually. Experience score raw survey data were individually
downloaded by section. Each subjects’ record occupied 58 rows and several columns. A
macro was written to condense the data into composite scores in single-row records listed
by name and crosstabbed along the columns by Experience item. These names were
matched to the master spreadsheet by section and appended. The macro is listed in
Appendix H. Object utilization data provided by OIT was imported into Microsoft
Access. A series of queries were performed to crosstab the data by username and remove
duplicate username listings so that each username-tied datum occupied the same row,
with columns labeled for the access time and date, number of accesses, and time spent for
each item running laterally in the same single row for the relevant username. The SQL
script for these queries is given in Appendix I. The usernames were then matched to the
master spreadsheet and manually appended.

56
Master Spreadsheet Data and Pre-Analysis Activities
Upon finalizing the master spreadsheet, data were filtered as necessary for each
analysis. Row records containing blanks and zeros were filtered only for columns
containing required factor or covariate information for a particular model. This was
replicated for each analysis, and for each variation of each analysis if alterations were
made due to shifting significance to optimize model fit with the available data. Minitab
was used for analysis, and the model employed, a General Liner Model (GLM) with
Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), required entry of full rank data, meaning blanks
caused exceptions and thus had to be eliminated.
Ceiling effects resulting from students scoring extremely high or at the test
maximum score occasionally threatened model applicability for those records of greatest
concern, i.e., records of students scoring lower on the spatial visualization test. Data and
residuals were also examined to ensure the validity of normality assumptions when
required.
Hypotheses, Models, and Variables
Following are hypotheses and models initially used to address the research
questions. In many cases, these serve as starting points. As factors or covariates fail to
show significance, components may be removed. In the interest of brevity and providing
a general illustration of the models involving Likert-type scale Experience score
components, all models involving use of Likert scale Experience score components
below are modeled with just one covariate. This Likert-type scale Experience score
covariate should be assumed to be either modeled in practice as the total composite score
of all ten components, or a breakdown of the components into up to ten separate

57
covariates. The Likert-type scaled Experience score shall henceforth be referred to as
“Experience” or “Experience score.”
Typical of the models are the mean, µ, which is the overall post-test score mean;
the response due to treatment, α, indicating the effect of access to the tool; the block, β,
for each course section; the pre-test score effects, γ; the experience level effects, δ, of
which the actual experience level is determined by a composite score derived from the
Experience survey; the spatial visualization instructional tool utilization effects, η, of
which utilization values are logged by the university course and grade web application
(Carmen, by Desire-to-Learn); and finally the error term, ε. The hypotheses tested and
associated models and variables are described below.
Tool Access Effects on Spatial Visualization Improvement
H 0 : 1   0  0
H 1 :  1   0  0 ; to determine the effects on spatial visualization gains due to
treatment, or free tool access. The Tool Access Effects on Spatial Visualization
Improvement are modeled as:
y post ijk     i   j   Tk   X k   ijk

MEAN BLOCK EXPERIENCE
RESPONSE TREATMENT PRE-TEST ERROR
where α represents effects on the spatial visualization post-test response due to treatment
(fixed factor),  represents the effects due to the block or lab section (random factor), 
represents the individual spatial visualization pre-test score (covariate), δ represents
58
effects on the response due to experience (covariate), on the mean response, μ. The
subscripts 0 and 1 designate control and response groups, respectively. The parameter
types of the model are summarized as:

RESPONSE MEAN FACTORS COVARIATES ERROR
i = 0, 1 (control, treatment)
j = 1, 2, 3, …, 12 (section/lab number, a blocking factor)
k = 1, 2, 3, …, n, where n = total number of participants (subject number)
Tool Utilization Effects on Spatial Visualization Improvement
H 0 :  0
H1 :   0 ; to determine the effects on spatial visualization gains due to tool
utilization access within the treatment group. The Tool Utilization Effects on Spatial
Visualization Improvement are modeled as:
y post1 jk  1   j   Tk   X k  U k  1 jk
RESPONSE MEAN BLOCK EXPERIENCE ERROR
PRE-TEST UTILIZATION
where  represents the effects due to the block or lab section (random factor), 
effects on the response due to experience (covariate),  represents effects on the
response due to tool utilization (covariate), on the mean response, μ1. The subscript 1
59
designates modeling within the original treatment group. The parameter types of the
model are summarized as:
y post1 jk  1   j   Tk   X k  U k  1 jk
RESPONSE MEAN FACTOR COVARIATES ERROR
An alternate analysis here involves removing the continuous tool utilization
covariate and replacing it with a Boolean tool usage random factor to determine the
effects of using the tool in any capacity on the response.
Experience Effects on Spatial Visualization Ability Gains
H0 :   0
H1 :   0 ; to determine the effects on spatial visualization ability improvements
due to developmental experiences. The Experience Effects on Spatial Visualization
Ability Gains are modeled as:

MEAN BLOCK EXPERIENCE
RESPONSE TREATMENT PRE-TEST ERROR
where α represents effects on the spatial visualization post-test response due to treatment
(fixed factor),  represents the effects due to the block or lab section (random factor), 
60
effects on the response due to experience (covariate), on the mean response, μ. The
parameter types of the model are summarized as:

RESPONSE MEAN FACTORS COVARIATES ERROR
i = 0, 1 (control, treatment)
Experience Effects on Initial Spatial Visualization Ability
H0 :   0
H1 :   0 ; to determine the effects on initial spatial visualization ability due to
developmental experiences. The Experience Effects on Initial Spatial Visualization
Ability are modeled as:
y pre jk     j   X k   jk
MEAN EXPERIENCE
RESPONSE BLOCK ERROR
where the spatial visualization pre-test is the response,  represents the effects due to the
block or lab section (random factor), δ represents effects on the response due to
experience (covariate), on the mean response, μ. Note that utilization, as well as control
and treatment group considerations have been ignored since this is a pre-treatment
collection of data. The parameter types of the model are summarized as:
61
y pre jk     j   X k   jk
MEAN COVARIATE
RESPONSE FACTOR ERROR
Experience Effects on Grades
H0 :   0
H1 :   0 ; to determine the effects on heavily Drawing and non-Drawing course
grades due to developmental experiences. The Experience Effects on Grades are
modeled as:
y grade jk     j   X k   jk
MEAN EXPERIENCE
RESPONSE BLOCK ERROR
where the grade is the response,  represents the effects due to the block or lab section
(random factor), δ represents effects on the response due to experience (covariate), on the
mean response, μ. The parameter types of the model are summarized as:
ygrade jk     j   X k   jk
MEAN COVARIATE
RESPONSE FACTOR ERROR
62
Tool Utilization Effects on Grades
H 0 :  0
H1 :   0 ; to determine the effects on grades due to tool utilization access within the
treatment group. The Tool Utilization Effects on Grades are modeled as:
y grade1 jk  1   j   Tk   X k  U k  1 jk
where α represents effects on the grades response due to treatment (fixed factor), 
represents the effects due to the block or lab section (random factor),  represents the
individual spatial visualization pre-test score (covariate), δ represents effects on the
response due to experience (covariate),  represents effects on the response due to tool
utilization (covariate), on the mean response, μ. The subscript 1 designates modeling
within the original treatment group. The parameter types of the model are summarized
as:
63
Once again, an alternate analysis here involves removing the continuous tool utilization
covariate and replacing it with a Boolean tool usage random factor to determine the
effects of using the tool in any capacity on the response.
Spatial Visualization Pre-test Effects on Grades
H0 :   0
H1 :   0 ; to determine the effects on spatial visualization gains due to tool
utilization access within the treatment group. The Spatial Visualization Pre-test Effects
on Grades are modeled as:
where α represents effects on the grades response due to treatment (fixed factor), 
represents the effects due to the block or lab section (random factor),  represents the
individual spatial visualization pre-test score (covariate) effects, δ represents effects on
the response due to experience (covariate),  represents effects on the response due to
tool utilization (covariate), on the mean response, μ. The subscript 1 designates modeling
within the original treatment group. The parameter types of the model are summarized
as:
64
Grades from assignments and test problems that rely heavily on spatial
visualization skills and grades that are less spatial visualization reliant will be analyzed.
It is important to note that in all of the above models, as factors or covariates are
determined to be not significant in their effects on the responses, they may be removed to
improve the model fit for investigative purposes. This may not always be the case as
some factors or covariates of some significance may still account for variance in the
response.
Additional factors and levels would further limit the model should the experience
scores be treated as discrete. A randomized complete block design is used where one half
of each block is randomly selected for designation of control or treatment. Each block
represents a course section with a unique combination of class time, instructor, and
graduate teaching assistant. None of the investigators are involved in teaching or
administrating any of the participants’ course sections during the quarter of the study.
Risks
Risks to participants included treatment and control group student grade means
showing statistically significant differences due to the application of or lack of treatment.
Significance was tested and grades were to be leveled accordingly, but differences in
overall grade means were not significant. A minority of grade fields in the student
gradebook were affected. Both the First-Year Engineering Program Director and
Associate Dean of the College of Engineering were aware of and approved of this
approach.
65
Risks to participants in regarding privacy and identity were minimal in that only
one person will administer, collect, and analyze the data. This person stripped the data of
identifying fields after the consent forms were processed. This risk was also
incrementally small given the existing gradebook access given to the many personnel
who are members of the instructional teams providing instruction and grading to each of
the course sections in the First-Year Engineering Program. Similarly, there was
additionally a minor, also incrementally small risk involved in course performance
information leaking out to unauthorized persons.
Internal Validity
The greatest threat to internal validity is control group knowledge or usage of the
instructional tool. This is minimized by restricting tool access to Carmen which requires
a unique login for each student participant. Additional risks to validity include half-
hearted or limited use of the tool by treatment group participants.
Data Analysis
Analysis of Covariance, or ANCOVA, a general linear model, was used to
analyze the data.
Tool Effectiveness
Upon completion of the study and subsequent data analysis, if the tool is
effective, results would follow a pattern as generalized in Figure 3.1.
66
SPATIAL VISUALIZATION TEST SCORE SPATIAL VISUALIZATION POST-TEST
RESPONSES VS. EXPERIENTIAL SCORE RESPONSES VS.
COMPOSITE SCORES PRE-TEST SCORES
POST-INSTRUCTION
RESPONSE
POST-TEST EXPERIMENT
PRE-TEST CONTROL
EXPERIENCE INITIAL ABILITY
Figure 3.1: Potential pattern of results given effective instructional tool.
This illustrates a pattern where those student participants with the least initial
spatial ability or experience may have the most to gain through new experiences and
instruction designed to exercise spatial visualization skills. This has been shown in
research where gaps (such as gender gaps, discussed earlier) between groups are closed
quickly by the lower-scoring group making gains faster after experience and instruction,
similar to a weak muscle developing more quickly to match an equally exercised strong
muscle. It also depicts a ceiling which exists because the maximum score of the PSVT—
R of 30 is occasionally attainable by some students initially on the pre-test if they are
particularly gifted (Ohio State University, 2003-2008).
Limitations
Students who score at or near the maximum, may sometimes have lower post-test
scores more often than students who score lower initially. This may be attributable to the
random fluctuations in test performance exceeding the potential gains from added
instruction and experience for those whose spatial visualization abilities are already at or
67
near the ceiling of the metric employed. Because the tool is intended to help remediate
those in need of enhancing their spatial visualization abilities, this is an acceptable
drawback of the test, although tests with higher ceilings for measuring spatial
visualization ability of the gifted can and have been created; however, they are not as
proven through nearly the iterations of studies and research as the test employed for this
study. It was assumed that the potential volume of participants in this study will alleviate
ceiling effect concerns.
In addition, it is difficult to know student participation levels and how missing
data as a result of student non-participation in certain measures will affect the study of
the outcome. Finally, metrics of a voluntary or non-grade dependent nature do not
always provide the incentives for whole-hearted participation. For example, students
may opt to curtail their participation in the visualization test or may rush through the
Experience score survey questions. Student online connections may get cut, or they may
get interrupted and never complete some activities. Because the data collected in this
study is not actively proctored there are associated risks to validity and this can hurt the
sensitivity of the statistical analyses as full rank data sets are required. This may also
alter the distribution of data from what is true of the sample.
Students may leave windows open when using the animation tools provided to the
treatment group. These will cause the Carmen object access log to continue counting
seconds of access, even if an object is left open in a window and the computer is left
unattended. Students in the treatment group may also, although unlikely, allow others
outside the treatment group to use their login to access the animation objects.
68
Finally, while exams are graded uniformly across sections with one grader
assigned per exam problem, all other grades are graded by instructional team members
assigned to a particular section, thus grades will vary by section, another need for the
application of blocking factors in this model.
69
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
This study was conducted to investigate whether virtual 3-dimensional animated
models of existing, assigned, paper-based engineering graphics problems can be used as
an effective instructional tool that enables students to enhance their spatial visualization
skills. In addition, this study sought to uncover, or in some cases confirm, evidence of
links between developmental activities and student initial spatial visualization abilities
and visualization gains after instruction and/or treatment. Finally, this investigation also
sought to determine the relationship between initial spatial visualization skills and both
heavily visualization reliant and less visualization reliant assignment grades.
Treatment of the Data
As discussed earlier, the data collected in this study was not only extensive, but
employed a variety of collection, parsing, and formatting devices and activities. Section
information, grades – both for individual items and calculated items, PSVT—R pre-test
and post-test scores were collected. Necessary conversions and disseminations were
made for the analysis, including separating grades by those which are heavily
visualization skill dependent and those that are not. Most of these separated grades were
normalized to percentages for ease of comparison. Depending on the model, responses
include PSVT—R post-test scores, PSVT—R pre-test scores, and visualization and non-
70
visualization dependent grades. Covariates, also model-dependent, include PSVT—R
pre-test scores, individual and composite Experience scores, time-based utilization data,
and access count-based utilization data. The 12 labs comprised the blocking factors, and
the students randomly assigned to receive access to the animations were designated as
treatment group members, while those students not granted access were designated as
control group members. Boolean access-based utilization is considered a random factor
within the original treatment group in an additional model that was analyzed.
Over 40,000 data points were collected altogether. Much of this data was filtered
for the analyses that follow, reducing resolution of the data and adversely affecting the
detectable difference of the statistical models. A large amount of data was removed due
to lack of consent from absent students, or students who simply refused to sign. This
reduced the number of study participants from a total of 396 students who enrolled and
completed the course to 273 who provided consent and completed the course. Often
missing data prevented full rank analysis, required for the General Linear Model module
in Minitab. Actions taken included removing subject records where data points essential
to achieving full rank data were missing. In addition, some data sets were truncated to
remove ceiling effects. This of course can affect the distribution and other characteristics
of the data, but considering the subsamples modeled for the purposes of evaluating the
spatial visualization instructional tool, students with lower PSVT—R scores, appropriate
liberties were taken considering that subjects at or near the ceiling of the PSVT—R are
not targets for remediation. This remedy alleviated ceiling effects such as the conical
pattern of residuals when plotted against the model response of PSVT—R test scores.
Ceiling effects may also cause an artificially altered slope, as the fitted model is forced to
71
“funnel” towards the test maximum. Since the interest is in remediating students with
lower than average PSVT—R scores, a more suitable model fits the slopes of students
closer to the mean, rather on the far right tail at the test maximum. This truncation also
helped alleviate some of the left skew, as the original data collected leaves the analysis
tailless on the right side after the test maximum of 30. These issues and associated
remedies, as well as their implications, are discussed further in the next chapter.
Throughout this chapter, portions of tables indicating significant effects are
highlighted.
Preliminary Analysis of Data: General Trends and Relationships
First, several general observations about the data, the relationships observed, and
significant linear correlations are described and depicted graphically. In the subsequent
analyses employing the models described in the previous chapter to test their respective
hypotheses, adjustments made to data to achieve full rank status and/or remove ceiling
effects will be noted.
Table 4.1 summarizes the data collected by block or lab. The missing data are
evident when comparing control and treatment group counts to the number of data points
collected for each data type listed in columns to the right. It is important to note that a
total of 81 students opted to use the spatial visualization instructional animations at least
once, or 60% of the treatment group and 29.7% of the total participants listed in the table.
72
73
Table 4.1: Descriptive statistics for blocked sections, excluding grades.
For illustrative purposes and to confirm earlier assumptions regarding student
gains in pre- versus post-test PSVT—R scores as related to experience and ceiling
effects, average spatial visualization scores at each Experience score level are plotted and
shown with trend lines in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1: Average spatial visualization score plotted vs. Experience score.
For further illustrative purposes and to confirm earlier assumptions, regarding
gains diminishing with increasing pre-test scores and ceiling effects, average spatial
visualization post-test scores at each spatial visualization pre-test score level are plotted
and shown with trend lines in Figure 4.2.
74
Figure 4.2: Average spatial visualization post-test score plotted vs. spatial visualization
pre-test score.
In both of the above depicted cases, there is a decreasing gain, the distance
between the fitted curves. For both cases, this signifies two possible phenomena. The
first cause is the PSVT—R test ceiling score of 30. The other may also be the effects of
the learning curve, where an individual learns a skill at a decreasing rate with exposure.
It is shown in other studies (Hsi, et al., 1997; Peters, et al., 1995; Sorby & Baartmans,
1996) that students with initially weaker spatial visualization abilities narrow the gap
after instruction and gain faster than their initially more capable peers. Both of these
factors seem to potentially be in effect here.
All data used as covariates or responses, that is, those data items that are
continuous or are treated as continuous and appear in the models, were checked for
75
correlation with each other. In Table 4.2, the Pearson product moment coefficient and
associated p-values between data types such as PSVT—R pre-test scores, various
Drawing and non-drawing grade types, and Experience scores are shown, excluding
spatial visualization animation utilization. Items significantly linearly correlated are
highlighted, assuming a critical α level of 0.05. Here, n=123 out an original data set of
273. Records with missing PSVT—R pre- or post-tests, Experience scores, and grades
were removed.
Another similar listing of Pearson product moment correlation coefficients that
does include spatial visualization instructional animation correlations is shown in Table
4.3, resulting in only 38 full rank records. Both a simplified (Table 4.2) and more
detailed (Table 4.3) table are provided due to this drop in sample size as a result of full
rank data requirements.
From the correlation tables, especially Table 4.2, several trends are evident. First,
Experience components (as listed in Appendix B) DRAFTING (drafting, design, and
sketching experience) and especially MODELS (building blocks, models, and stackable
toy experience) are linearly correlated with pre-test scores and most grades, as is the
overall Experience composite, L Total. It is also striking how correlated PSVT—R pre-
test scores, representing initial spatial visualization abilities, are with all grades, as well
as DRAFTING, MODELS, SPORTS (sports experience), and MUSIC (musical
experience). While correlation does not imply causality, it is also noteworthy that
SPORTS (sports experience) is negatively correlated with PSVT—R pre-test scores and
all visualization-related grades, but not so with non-visualization grades.
Preliminary tests were run with data sets filtered for ceiling effects to check
76
5 ART
7 CAD
L Total
Percent
4 HOME
n=123*
8 MUSIC
9 CRAFTS
3 SPORTS
2 MODELS
coefficient
PSVT‐R PRE
1 DRAFTING
MT Vis Percent
DWG Vis Grade
IMPROVEMENT
6 VIDEO GAMES
Pearson product
10 NAVIGATION
Vis Grade Percent
moment correlation
Pearson 0.190 0.223 ‐0.223 0.068 0.037 0.124 0.094 0.236 ‐0.052 0.025 0.163
PSVT‐R PRE
p 0.035 0.013 0.013 0.452 0.688 0.173 0.298 0.009 0.569 0.787 0.072
Pearson 0.195 0.215 ‐0.053 0.101 0.131 ‐0.001 0.112 0.080 0.057 0.132 0.204 0.341
Vis Grade Percent
p 0.030 0.017 0.562 0.265 0.147 0.991 0.218 0.378 0.529 0.145 0.024 0
DWG Vis Grade Pearson 0.266 0.199 ‐0.045 0.183 0.146 0.022 0.234 0.029 0.118 0.189 0.278 0.331 0.692
Percent p 0.003 0.027 0.618 0.043 0.108 0.812 0.009 0.754 0.195 0.037 0.002 0 0
MT Vis Grade Pearson 0.134 0.185 ‐0.047 0.051 0.104 ‐0.010 0.044 0.088 0.023 0.087 0.140 0.287 0.957 0.451
Percent p 0.139 0.041 0.606 0.572 0.254 0.912 0.631 0.336 0.798 0.337 0.124 0.001 0 0
Non‐vis Grade Pearson 0.124 0.177 0.007 0.211 ‐0.018 ‐0.030 0.124 0.129 0.096 0.136 0.202 0.322 0.535 0.472 0.471
Percent p 0.170 0.051 0.942 0.019 0.842 0.744 0.173 0.154 0.292 0.135 0.025 0 0 0 0
*No missing grades, PSVT‐R Pre‐tests, Likert scores. α=0.05, significant p‐values are highlighted.
77
Table 4.2: Pearson product moment correlation coefficients for initial spatial ability, various Drawing and non-
drawing grades, and Experience scores.

5 ART
7 CAD
L Total
n=38*
Percent
Percent
of Visits
moment
4 HOME
8 MUSIC
3 SPORTS
9 CRAFTS
Vis Grade
2 MODELS
coefficient
correlation
PSVT‐R PRE
PSVT‐R PRE
1 DRAFTING
PSVT‐R POST
MT Vis Percent
DWG Vis Grade
IMPROVEMENT
Non‐vis Percent
Overall Number
6 VIDEO GAMES
Pearson product
10 NAVIGATION
Pearson 0.395 0.241 ‐0.274 0.206 0.160 0.081 0.087 0.355 0.134 0.080 0.302
PSVT‐R PRE
p 0.014 0.145 0.096 0.214 0.337 0.629 0.602 0.029 0.423 0.632 0.065
Pearson 0.147 0.169 ‐0.061 0.042 0.075 0.282 ‐0.053 ‐0.107 0.052 0.111 0.119 0.222
PSVT‐R POST
p 0.379 0.310 0.718 0.804 0.656 0.086 0.753 0.521 0.754 0.505 0.475 0.181
Pearson ‐0.025 0.231 0.026 0.334 0.279 ‐0.143 0.012 0.254 0.207 0.215 0.283 0.063 0.074 0.063
Vis Grade Percent
p 0.883 0.162 0.877 0.040 0.089 0.392 0.943 0.123 0.212 0.196 0.085 0.706 0.657 0.706
DWG Vis Grade Pearson 0.261 0.365 0.085 0.526 0.483 ‐0.213 0.279 0.119 0.388 0.343 0.523 0.202 0.19 0.202 0.779
Percent p 0.114 0.024 0.610 0.001 0.002 0.200 0.090 0.478 0.016 0.035 0.001 0.223 0.253 0.223 0.000
MT Vis Grade Pearson ‐0.107 0.172 0.006 0.250 0.196 ‐0.110 ‐0.068 0.273 0.136 0.159 0.188 0.017 0.034 0.017 0.983 0.649
Percent p 0.522 0.301 0.970 0.131 0.239 0.510 0.685 0.097 0.414 0.342 0.257 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.000 0
Non‐vis Grade Pearson 0.100 0.331 ‐0.122 0.423 0.088 0.006 0.075 0.297 0.260 0.339 0.357 0.488 0.154 0.488 0.462 0.546 0.399
Percent p 0.551 0.043 0.464 0.008 0.600 0.970 0.654 0.070 0.115 0.038 0.028 0.002 0.357 0.002 0.003 0 0.013
Overall Number of Pearson ‐0.010 0.121 0.151 0.177 0.064 ‐0.167 ‐0.218 ‐0.200 0.133 0.268 0.039 ‐0.109 0.21 ‐0.109 0.284 0.257 0.268 0.11
Visits p 0.954 0.468 0.364 0.288 0.702 0.317 0.189 0.229 0.427 0.104 0.815 0.514 0.206 0.514 0.084 0.119 0.104 0.51
Pearson ‐0.155 0.269 0.148 0.066 ‐0.004 ‐0.275 ‐0.045 ‐0.189 0.149 0.009 ‐0.025 ‐0.225 0.066 ‐0.225 0.091 0.163 0.062 0.227 0.344
Overall Total Time
p 0.353 0.103 0.375 0.695 0.980 0.095 0.788 0.255 0.373 0.959 0.881 0.174 0.695 0.174 0.585 0.327 0.709 0.171 0.034
*No missing grades, PSVT‐R Pre‐tests, Likert scores, utilization. α=0.05, significant p‐values are highlighted.
78
Table 4.3: Pearson product moment correlation coefficients for initial spatial ability, various Drawing and non-
drawing grades, animation tool utilization, and Experience scores.

samples and blocks for differences. Although sampling for control and experiment
assignment was random and blocks were a result of existing environmental circumstances
(student scheduling), it was deemed worthwhile to check for significant differences in the
population before performing the hypothesis testing on the models described in Chapter
3.
The first test (Table 4.4) tests for significant differences between the control and
treatment groups’ PSVT—R pre-test means. In this scenario, the data are filtered for
records of students with PSVT—R pre-test scores, all grades, and Experience survey
participation. The difference between the control and treatment groups is not significant
(T=0.66, p=0.51, n=123), with a control group mean pre-test score of 23.80, 0.52 greater
than the treatment group mean pre-test score of 23.28.
Two-sample T for PSVT-R PRE
Cont.
(0)/Exp.
(1) N Mean StDev SE Mean
0 70 23.80 4.30 0.51
1 53 23.28 4.27 0.59
Difference = mu (0) - mu (1)

Estimate for difference: 0.517
95% CI for difference: (-1.028, 2.062)
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 0.66 P-Value = 0.509 DF = 112
Table 4.4: T-test for significant differences in PSVT—R means between control and
treatment groups, filtered for pre-test scores, grades, and Experience scores.
The next test (Table 4.5) also tests for significant differences between the control
and treatment groups’ PSVT—R pre-test means. In this scenario, the data are filtered
only for records of students with PSVT—R pre-test scores. The difference between the
control and treatment groups is not significant (T=0.82, p=0.41, n=246), although the
79
treatment group mean pre-test score of 23.43 is 0.49 greater than the mean control group
score of 22.94.
Two-sample T for PSVT-R PRE
Cont.
(0)/Exp.
(1) N Mean StDev SE Mean
0 124 22.94 4.64 0.42
1 122 23.43 4.69 0.42
Difference = mu (0) - mu (1)

Estimate for difference: -0.491
95% CI for difference: (-1.663, 0.682)
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -0.82 P-Value = 0.410 DF = 243
Table 4.5: T-test for significant differences in PSVT—R means between control and
treatment groups, filtered for pre-test scores.
Testing the same filtered sample again for differences between the blocks, or labs,
trends towards significance, but is outside the α level of 0.05 (R2=0.063, p=0.16, n=246).
This is shown in Table 4.6.
However, in some filtering scenarios, such when only PSVT—R pre- and post-
test zeros are filtered out, resulting in n=190, the effects of blocking by lab is significant,
as shown in Table 4.7, where the course section blocking factor is significant with
p=0.046. In addition, this blocking factor accounts for some variance in each of the
models. Intuitively, it makes sense that different meeting times, instructional team
members, and other circumstantial considerations would impact tool usage and
participation in course and study activities, and this would impact data fields such as
grades, exam scores, PSVT—R scores and participation rates, etcetera.
80
One-way ANOVA: PSVT-R PRE versus Lab
Source DF SS MS F P
Lab 11 335.9 30.5 1.43 0.160
Error 234 4993.5 21.3
Total 245 5329.4
S = 4.619 R-Sq = 6.30% R-Sq(adj) = 1.90%
Table 4.6: ANOVA for significant differences in PSVT—R between blocked labs,
filtered for pre-test scores.
General Linear Model: PSVT-R PRE versus Lab, Cont.(0)/Exp.(1)
Factor Type Levels Values

Lab random 12 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A,
6B
Cont.(0)/Exp.(1) fixed 2 0, 1
Analysis of Variance for PSVT-R PRE, using Adjusted SS for Tests
Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P

Lab 11 386.47 373.72 33.97 1.87 0.046
Cont.(0)/Exp.(1) 1 4.06 4.06 4.06 0.22 0.637
Error 178 3238.35 3238.35 18.19
Total 190 3628.88
S = 4.26532 R-Sq = 10.76% R-Sq(adj) = 4.75%
Table 4.7: GLM for significant differences in blocked labs, filtered for pre-test and post-
test scores excluding zeros.
Principal Analysis of Data: Hypothesis Testing
The hypothesis to test the effects on spatial visualization gains due to treatment,
or free tool access follows. Achieving full rank data required filtering to remove zeros,
81
indicating non-participation, from PSVT—R pre- and post-test scores, and blanks in the
Experience scores. Descriptive statistics are provided in Table 4.8, with PSVT—R pre-
test scores filtered to allow only scores between 1 through 23, inclusively; PSVT—R
post-test scores excluding zero scores and ceiling scores of 30; and records with no
Experience scores removed. Table 4.9 presents results of the general linear model for
differences in PSVT—R post-tests between control and treatment groups, given a lab
blocking factor with experience and pre-test scores as covariates, filtered for pre-test
scores to exclude zeros, no pre-test scores over 23/30, no post-test scores at 30/30, with
experience scores available. Differences between control and treatment groups were
significant at p=0.035. However, the only covariate of significance is the PSVT—R pre-
test score with p<0.0005. Experience scores (1-10) were not significant in explaining this
model. Altogether the version of the model described accounts for over 53% of the
variance.
Another version of this model is shown in Table 4.10. In this version, the not
significant covariates were all removed stepwise. Here, significant differences attributed
to control versus treatment groups are shown with p=0.01 with an increase in the mean
from control to experiment post-test score of 2.255. The lab blocking factor is kept in
place because it accounts for 13% of the variance. Altogether the model accounts for just
over 50% of the variance.
82
.
Descriptive Statistics
Cont. Total
Variable Mean SE Mean StDev Variance Minimum Q1 Median Q3 Maximum IQR
(0)/Exp. Count
0 35 21.314 0.748 4.424 19.575 14 18 22 26.00 27.00 8.00
PSVT‐R POST
1 37 24.459 0.553 3.363 11.311 17 21.5 24 27.50 29.00 6.00
0 35 19.829 0.613 3.626 13.146 12 18 21 23.00 24.00 5.00
PSVT‐R PRE
1 37 20.73 0.518 3.15 9.925 12 19 21 23.00 24.00 4.00
0 35 2.143 0.17 1.004 1.008 1 1 2 3.00 5.00 2.00
1 DRAFTING
1 37 2.189 0.133 0.811 0.658 1 2 2 3.00 4.00 1.00
0 35 3.286 0.156 0.926 0.857 2 2 3 4.00 5.00 2.00
2 MODELS
1 37 3.162 0.142 0.866 0.751 1 3 3 4.00 5.00 1.00
0 35 4.029 0.171 1.014 1.029 2 3 4 5.00 5.00 2.00
3 SPORTS
1 37 4.162 0.157 0.958 0.917 2 3 4 5.00 5.00 2.00
83
4 HOME 0 35 3.743 0.118 0.701 0.491 3 3 4 4.00 5.00 1.00
IMPROVEME 1 37 3.432 0.18 1.094 1.197 1 3 3 4.00 5.00 1.00
0 35 2.771 0.179 1.06 1.123 1 2 3 4.00 5.00 2.00
5 ART
1 37 3.108 0.197 1.197 1.432 1 2 3 4.00 5.00 2.00
6 VIDEO 0 35 3.257 0.176 1.039 1.079 2 2 3 4.00 5.00 2.00
GAMES 1 37 3.757 0.175 1.065 1.134 2 3 4 5.00 5.00 2.00
0 35 1.829 0.181 1.071 1.146 1 1 2 2.00 5.00 1.00
7 CAD
1 37 1.784 0.17 1.031 1.063 1 1 1 3.00 4.00 2.00
0 35 2.286 0.215 1.274 1.622 1 1 2 3.00 5.00 2.00
8 MUSIC
1 37 2.595 0.234 1.423 2.026 1 1 2 4.00 5.00 3.00
0 35 2.314 0.168 0.993 0.987 1 2 2 3.00 5.00 1.00
9 CRAFTS
1 37 2.297 0.168 1.024 1.048 1 2 2 3.00 5.00 1.00
10 0 35 3.543 0.161 0.95 0.903 1 3 3 4.00 5.00 1.00
NAVIGATION 1 37 3.514 0.126 0.768 0.59 2 3 4 4.00 5.00 1.00
0 35 29.2 0.675 3.991 15.929 22 26 29 32.00 39.00 6.00
L Total
1 37 30 0.865 5.26 27.667 17 27 29 34.00 43.00 7.00
Table 4.8: Descriptive statistics for data set filtered for PSVT—R and Experience scores.
*n=72, PSVT‐R pre‐test filtered for scores 1‐23, PSVT‐R post‐test filtered for no zeros, no 30, blank Likert entries removed.
General Linear Model: PSVT-R POST versus Lab, Cont.(0)/Exp.(1)

6B
Analysis of Variance for PSVT-R POST, using Adjusted SS for Tests

DRAFTING 1 0.06 12.81 12.81 1.06 0.309
MODELS 1 5.70 2.20 2.20 0.18 0.672
SPORTS 1 0.33 4.69 4.69 0.39 0.537
HOME IMPROVEMENT 1 0.19 0.70 0.70 0.06 0.811
ART 1 20.55 4.53 4.53 0.37 0.544
VIDEO GAMES 1 39.95 6.02 6.02 0.50 0.484
CAD 1 1.00 0.64 0.64 0.05 0.820
MUSIC 1 27.94 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.966
CRAFTS 1 19.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.989
NAVIGATE 1 14.44 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.951
PSVT-R PRE 1 332.12 232.24 232.24 19.15 0.000
Lab 11 149.98 120.12 10.92 0.90 0.547
Cont.(0)/Exp.(1) 1 56.78 56.78 56.78 4.68 0.035
Error 48 582.01 582.01 12.13
Total 71 1250.65
S = 3.48213 R-Sq = 53.46% R-Sq(adj) = 31.16%
Table 4.9: GLM ANCOVA for significant differences in PSVT—R post-test between
control and treatment groups with blocked labs and experience and pre-test scores as
covariates.
84
General Linear Model: PSVT-R POST versus Lab, Cont.(0)/Exp.(1)
6B

PSVT-R PRE 1 389.09 246.10 246.10 22.85 0.000
Lab 11 161.40 120.27 10.93 1.02 0.445
Cont.(0)/Exp.(1) 1 75.53 75.53 75.53 7.01 0.010
Error 58 624.64 624.64 10.77
Total 71 1250.65
S = 3.28171 R-Sq = 50.06% R-Sq(adj) = 38.86%
Term Coef SE Coef T P
Constant 12.363 3.250 3.80 0.000
PSVT-R PRE 0.6224 0.1320 4.72 0.000
L Total -0.07187 0.09976 -0.72 0.474
Lab
1A -0.377 1.473 -0.26 0.799
1B 2.325 1.854 1.25 0.215
2A 2.147 1.840 1.17 0.248
2B 0.222 1.470 0.15 0.881
3A 0.287 1.246 0.23 0.819
3B 0.086 1.201 0.07 0.943
4A 1.844 1.051 1.75 0.085
4B -1.083 1.168 -0.93 0.358
5A 0.472 1.380 0.34 0.734
5B -2.521 3.208 -0.79 0.435
6A -2.415 1.249 -1.93 0.058
Cont.(0)/Exp
0 -1.1274 0.4272 -2.64 0.011
Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals
Response Variable PSVT-R POST
All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Cont.(0)/Exp.(1)
Cont.(0)/Exp.(1) = 0 subtracted from:
Cont.
(0)/Exp.
(1) Lower Center Upper -----+---------+---------+---------+-
1 0.5438 2.255 3.966 (-----------------*----------------)
-----+---------+---------+---------+-
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Tukey Simultaneous Tests
Response Variable PSVT-R POST
All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Cont.(0)/Exp.(1)
Cont.(0)/Exp.(1) = 0 subtracted from:
Cont.
(0)/Exp. Difference SE of Adjusted
(1) of Means Difference T-Value P-Value
1 2.255 0.8545 2.639 0.0107
Table 4.10: GLM ANCOVA for significant differences in PSVT—R post-test between
control and treatment groups, given blocked labs and pre-test scores as covariates.
85
The hypothesis to test the effects on spatial visualization gains due to tool
utilization access within the treatment group follows. Two primary versions of the model
are tested, one involving the number of visits by each student to the animation tool, and
another involving the total time spent per student on the animation tool. Achieving full
rank data initially required filtering to remove zeros from PSVT—R pre- and post-test
scores, and blanks in the Experience scores, as with the previous hypothesis test.
Descriptive statistics are similar to previous models.
Several data subsamples and model variations with reasonable assumptions for
ceiling effect removal of records and full rank data were run, as finding significance was
elusive, but mostly negative coefficients of small magnitudes for utilization consistently
appeared. Only one iteration showed a significant predictor for either utilization model,
whether time-based or visit count-based. With Experience data ignored completely and
only records with zeros for PSVT—R tests removed, a p-value of 0.003 was produced
with -0.00028 as a coefficient for the version of the utilization model incorporating
Overall Total Time spent on the animations (n=95). As shown in Table 4.11, covariate
predictor effects were significant, but its true meaning is questionable with such a
miniscule magnitude of the utilization coefficient.
86
General Linear Model: PSVT-R POST versus Lab

Lab random 12 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B

PSVT-R PRE 1 424.663 232.104 232.104 26.15 0.000
Overal Total Time 1 101.328 81.879 81.879 9.22 0.003
Lab 11 76.963 76.963 6.997 0.79 0.651
Error 81 719.046 719.046 8.877
Total 94 1322.000
S = 2.97945 R-Sq = 45.61% R-Sq(adj) = 36.88%

Constant 16.498 2.001 8.24 0.000
PSVT-R PRE 0.41179 0.08053 5.11 0.000
Overal Total -0.000280 0.000092 -3.04 0.003
Table 4.11: GLM ANCOVA for significant effects of the Overall Total Time utilization
covariate on PSVT—R post-test scores.
The Overall Total Time is derived from the Carmen log which simply records the
time a student’s internet browser window is open on the target of the link monitored,
which in the case of the instructional tool is the animation file. The Total Number of
Visits is simply a count of the number of times a student clicks on a link in Carmen. In
either scenario, there is no indication as to whether the student is actively using the
instructional tool each time, or if the student simply left a browser window open or
continues to click on the same link multiple times without successfully accessing the
animations.
Thus the questionable validity of the time-based and visit-count-based utilization
variables begs of the investigation one more approach. The continuous utilization
covariate was removed, and a Boolean usage random factor was added to the model.
87
This Boolean factor represents whether or not a student in the original treatment group
chose to use the visualization tool. This also did not produce significant results with most
model approaches and data subsets. One scenario, illustrated in Table 4.12, shows
significant, but negative effects. In this case, only those with tool access, in the treatment
group, who took the PSVT—R pre-test, scored no greater than 25 to remove ceiling
effects, and provided Experience survey information were included in the test. After
stepwise removal of the most not significant Experience components, a p-value of 0.050
for the Boolean usage factor was obtained. The main effects for the model, shown in
Figure 4.3, indicate a decrease in post-test scores for those who chose to use the
visualization tool for any amount of time or any number of visits.
Main Effects Plot for PSVT-R POST

Fitted Means
26.25
26.00
25.75
25.50
Mean
25.25
25.00
24.75
24.50
0 1
Used?
Figure 4.3: Main effects for PSVT—R post-test for the usage random factor.
88
General Linear Model: PSVT-R POST versus Used?

Used? random 2 0, 1

PSVT-R PRE 1 154.744 111.206 111.206 18.42 0.000
DRAFTING 1 15.349 50.057 50.057 8.29 0.007
ART 1 3.867 13.267 13.267 2.20 0.147
CAD 1 11.473 21.270 21.270 3.52 0.068
NAVIGATE 1 1.755 6.263 6.263 1.04 0.315
Used? 1 24.850 24.850 24.850 4.12 0.050
Error 37 223.409 223.409 6.038
Total 44 445.644
S = 2.45725 R-Sq = 49.87% R-Sq(adj) = 40.38%

Constant 9.806 4.111 2.39 0.022
PSVT-R PRE 0.7333 0.1709 4.29 0.000
DRAFTING -1.6993 0.5902 -2.88 0.007
HOME IMPROVEMENT 0.4478 0.4224 1.06 0.296
ART 0.6941 0.4683 1.48 0.147
CAD 0.7454 0.3972 1.88 0.068
NAVIGATE -0.5920 0.5812 -1.02 0.315
Used?
0 0.8679 0.4278 2.03 0.050
Table 4.12: GLM for PSVT—R post-test score effects by the animation usage factor.
The hypothesis to test the effects on spatial visualization ability improvements
due to developmental experiences follows. Achieving full rank data initially required
filtering to remove zeros from PSVT—R pre- and post-test scores, and blanks in the
Experience scores, as with previous hypothesis tests. In addition, ceiling effects severely
distort gains for students scoring in the upper echelon of the pre-test, so records with pre-
89
test scores above 25/30 were filtered, leaving n=148. Descriptive statistics are otherwise
similar to previous models.
Checking for interactions between pre-test PSVT—R scores and Experience
scores, not significant covariates were removed stepwise until iterations resulted in loss
of significance. In the resulting model, shown in Table 4.13, covariate predictor effects
were significant for HOME IMPROVEMENT (p=0.028), where students were asked,
“How often have you fixed things, with a parent, guardian, other mentor, or on your own,
such as working on a car, home improvements, construction, carpentry, electronics, or
other similar activities?” The interaction between pre-test score and HOME
IMPROVEMENT is also significant (p=0.035). Experience item DRAFTING, “How
often have you engaged in drafting, design and design sketching, engineering graphics, or
other manual (by hand) technical drawing activities?” showed a trend towards
significance (p=0.058), as did its interaction with pre-test scores (p=0.085). In both
cases, pre-test score, HOME IMPROVEMENT, and DRAFTING had negative effects on
the response, PSVT—R gain, while both interactions had positive effects on the response.
90
General Linear Model: PSVT-R GAIN versus Lab

Analysis of Variance for PSVT-R GAIN, using Adjusted SS for Tests

PSVT-R PRE 1 453.967 30.273 30.273 3.58 0.061
Lab 11 62.024 48.037 4.367 0.52 0.890
DRAFTING 1 19.967 30.914 30.914 3.65 0.058
PSVT-R PRE*DRAFTING 1 28.123 25.460 25.460 3.01 0.085
PSVT-R PRE*HOME IMPROVEMENT 1 15.204 38.557 38.557 4.55 0.035
ART 1 6.420 20.436 20.436 2.41 0.123
PSVT-R PRE*ART 1 19.501 19.074 19.074 2.25 0.136
CAD 1 0.052 7.897 7.897 0.93 0.336
PSVT-R PRE*CAD 1 6.655 8.409 8.409 0.99 0.321
CRAFTS 1 0.023 2.912 2.912 0.34 0.559
PSVT-R PRE*CRAFTS 1 1.689 2.748 2.748 0.32 0.570
NAVIGATE 1 4.601 20.816 20.816 2.46 0.119
PSVT-R PRE*NAVIGATE 1 18.045 18.045 18.045 2.13 0.147
Error 123 1041.483 1041.483 8.467
Total 147 1678.324
S = 2.90987 R-Sq = 37.95% R-Sq(adj) = 25.84%

Constant 14.552 6.676 2.18 0.031
PSVT-R PRE -0.5443 0.2879 -1.89 0.061
Lab
1A -0.156 1.003 -0.16 0.876
1B 0.679 1.032 0.66 0.512
2A 0.2590 0.8399 0.31 0.758
2B 0.246 1.142 0.22 0.830
3A 0.7096 0.8607 0.82 0.411
3B 0.2407 0.7652 0.31 0.754
4A 0.8514 0.6969 1.22 0.224
4B -0.2419 0.6802 -0.36 0.723
5A -0.2048 0.8260 -0.25 0.805
5B -0.2262 0.8321 -0.27 0.786
6A -1.2664 0.8375 -1.51 0.133
DRAFTING -4.423 2.315 -1.91 0.058
PSVT-R PRE*DRAFTING 0.17055 0.09836 1.73 0.085
HOME IMPROVEMENT -3.832 1.727 -2.22 0.028
PSVT-R PRE*HOME IMPROVEMENT 0.15782 0.07396 2.13 0.035
ART 2.643 1.701 1.55 0.123
PSVT-R PRE*ART -0.10668 0.07108 -1.50 0.136
CAD 2.100 2.174 0.97 0.336
PSVT-R PRE*CAD -0.09004 0.09035 -1.00 0.321
CRAFTS -1.171 1.996 -0.59 0.559
PSVT-R PRE*CRAFTS 0.04760 0.08355 0.57 0.570
NAVIGATE 2.883 1.839 1.57 0.119
PSVT-R PRE*NAVIGATE -0.11379 0.07795 -1.46 0.147
Table 4.13: Experience effects and interactions with PSVT—R test gains.
91
This section describes the test of the effects on initial spatial visualization ability
due to developmental experiences. Achieving full rank data initially required filtering to
remove zeros from PSVT—R pre-test scores, and blanks in the Experience scores.
Fortunately, ceiling effects are not as great an issue here.
Testing for the effects of predicting pre-test scores with the total Experience score
reveals significance (p=0.040). This analysis is shown in Table 4.14.
General Linear Model: PSVT-R PRE versus Lab


L Total 1 130.38 89.56 89.56 4.28 0.040
Lab 11 278.75 278.75 25.34 1.21 0.280
Error 278 5820.51 5820.51 20.94
Total 290 6229.64
S = 4.57571 R-Sq = 6.57% R-Sq(adj) = 2.53%

Constant 19.872 1.676 11.86 0.000
L Total 0.11341 0.05484 2.07 0.040
Lab
1A -1.4744 0.9132 -1.61 0.108
1B -0.0773 0.8810 -0.09 0.930
2A 1.1729 0.9134 1.28 0.200
2B 0.619 1.022 0.61 0.545
3A 0.5390 0.8241 0.65 0.514
3B -0.1007 0.8636 -0.12 0.907
4A 0.6040 0.8951 0.67 0.500
4B 1.2276 0.8215 1.49 0.136
5A -0.3500 0.8504 -0.41 0.681
5B 0.8930 0.8809 1.01 0.312
6A -1.0069 0.9533 -1.06 0.292
Table 4.14: GLM for PSVT—R pre-test score effects from Experience composite scores.
92
A similar model featuring all ten separate Experience scores was run, with
stepwise removal of not significant covariates until maximum significance of remaining
Experience components was achieved. This resulted in Experience components
MODELS, “How often have you constructed models or played with building blocks,
Legos, Lincoln Logs, or other similar stackable toys?”; SPORTS, “How often have you
played sports?”; and MUSIC, “How often have you played musical instruments or
composed music?”, showing significance (p=0.003, 0.042, and 0.013, respectively), with
SPORTS showing negative effects on the response. The results of the analysis for this
model are shown in Table 4.15.
93
General Linear Model: PSVT-R PRE versus Lab


MODELS 1 248.73 181.45 181.45 9.21 0.003
SPORTS 1 107.85 82.29 82.29 4.18 0.042
MUSIC 1 137.95 123.86 123.86 6.29 0.013
Lab 11 297.62 297.62 27.06 1.37 0.185
Error 276 5437.48 5437.48 19.70
Total 290 6229.64
S = 4.43858 R-Sq = 12.72% R-Sq(adj) = 8.29%

Constant 21.024 1.512 13.90 0.000
MODELS 0.9146 0.3014 3.03 0.003
SPORTS -0.5444 0.2664 -2.04 0.042
MUSIC 0.5037 0.2009 2.51 0.013
Lab
1A -1.6237 0.8872 -1.83 0.068
1B -0.2475 0.8568 -0.29 0.773
2A 1.5400 0.8919 1.73 0.085
2B 0.6723 0.9924 0.68 0.499
3A 0.9119 0.8030 1.14 0.257
3B -0.5108 0.8467 -0.60 0.547
4A 0.5948 0.8682 0.69 0.494
4B 0.9892 0.7985 1.24 0.216
5A -0.1405 0.8306 -0.17 0.866
5B 0.7149 0.8589 0.83 0.406
6A -1.0462 0.9262 -1.13 0.260
Table 4.15: GLM for PSVT—R pre-test score effects by Experience components:
MODELS, SPORTS, and MUSIC.
The hypothesis to test the effects on heavily visualization-dependent grades such
as drawings and non-visualization grades such as team lab assignments due to
developmental experiences follows. Achieving full rank data required filtering to remove
zeros grades and blanks in the Experience scores, in a manner similar to previous
94
hypothesis tests. This results in n=130. Descriptive statistics are otherwise similar to
previous models.
Grades were adjusted to remove components such as attendance, group
assignment grades, and journal entry participation, as well as bonus points unrelated to
the curriculum. They were then segregated into overall grades, visualization-dependent
grades, and non-visualization heavily dependent grades. Visualization-dependent grades
were also further broken into drawing assignment grades and midterm grades that include
only midterm problems requiring drawing and visualization skills similar to those
requisite of the drawing homework assignments. All models were analyzed with a
stepwise covariate elimination approach until maximum significance was attained. It is
worth noting that the lab blocking factor had significant effects in a few instances here,
portraying the differences in instructional settings and grading.
Experience scores did not significantly predict overall final grades. Non-
visualization grades were significantly affected by HOME IMPROVEMENT, “How
often have you fixed things, with a parent, guardian, other mentor, or on your own, such
as working on a car, home improvements, construction, carpentry, electronics, or other
similar activities?” Covariate DRAFTING, “How often have you engaged in drafting,
design and design sketching, engineering graphics, or other manual (by hand) technical
drawing activities?”, and ART, “How often have you engaged in creating artwork
(drawing, graphic design, painting, 3D art, photography, etc.)?”, also showed some
significance. Table 4.16 shows the GLM table for this model.
95
General Linear Model: Non-vis, grd reduced percent versus Lab

Lab random 10 1B, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B
Analysis of Variance for Non-vis, grd reduced percent, using Adjusted SS for
Tests

DRAFTING 1 10.583 26.120 26.120 3.22 0.075
SPORTS 1 0.280 14.885 14.885 1.84 0.178
ART 1 9.128 25.861 25.861 3.19 0.077
VIDEO GAMES 1 15.369 10.579 10.579 1.31 0.256
CAD 1 1.325 5.073 5.073 0.63 0.431
MUSIC 1 30.476 20.498 20.498 2.53 0.115
Lab 9 249.029 249.029 27.670 3.41 0.001
Error 113 915.896 915.896 8.105
Total 129 1267.280
S = 2.84698 R-Sq = 27.73% R-Sq(adj) = 17.49%

Constant 92.107 1.959 47.02 0.000
DRAFTING 0.6401 0.3566 1.80 0.075
SPORTS -0.3622 0.2673 -1.36 0.178
ART -0.5189 0.2905 -1.79 0.077
VIDEO GAMES -0.2761 0.2417 -1.14 0.256
CAD -0.2638 0.3335 -0.79 0.431
MUSIC 0.3425 0.2154 1.59 0.115
Lab
1B 0.4396 0.9927 0.44 0.659
2B 0.5540 0.7212 0.77 0.444
3A 2.7862 0.7544 3.69 0.000
3B -0.4376 0.8116 -0.54 0.591
4A -1.2695 0.7068 -1.80 0.075
4B 0.9225 0.6478 1.42 0.157
5A -1.1630 0.7616 -1.53 0.130
5B 0.9849 0.7966 1.24 0.219
6A -2.9671 0.9164 -3.24 0.002
Table 4.16: GLM for response Non-visualization grades effects by Experience score
covariates.
Combined visualization grades were not significantly affected by any of the
Experience score covariates, but HOME IMPROVEMENT, “How often have you fixed
things, with a parent, guardian, other mentor, or on your own, such as working on a car,
96
home improvements, construction, carpentry, electronics, or other similar activities?”,
and VIDEO GAMES, “How often have you played video games?”, showed trends
towards significance. Table 4.17 shows the GLM table for this model. Covariate
VIDEO GAMES negatively affected the response.
General Linear Model: All Vis Grade percent versus Lab

Analysis of Variance for All Vis Grade percent, using Adjusted SS for Tests

SPORTS 1 21.86 126.39 126.39 2.64 0.107
VIDEO GAMES 1 80.45 154.32 154.32 3.23 0.075
Lab 9 647.04 647.04 71.89 1.50 0.155
Error 117 5594.60 5594.60 47.82
Total 129 6533.83
S = 6.91499 R-Sq = 14.37% R-Sq(adj) = 5.59%

Constant 94.409 3.853 24.50 0.000
SPORTS -1.0198 0.6272 -1.63 0.107
VIDEO GAMES -1.0123 0.5635 -1.80 0.075
Lab
1B 0.660 2.338 0.28 0.778
2B 2.733 1.749 1.56 0.121
3A 2.326 1.798 1.29 0.198
3B 0.140 1.962 0.07 0.943
4A -1.482 1.674 -0.89 0.378
4B 0.894 1.569 0.57 0.570
5A -1.546 1.829 -0.85 0.400
5B 2.836 1.897 1.49 0.138
6A -1.531 2.168 -0.71 0.482
Table 4.17: GLM for response all visualization grades effects by Experience score
covariates.
Midterm exam visualization-related grades were significantly affected by
MODELS, “How often have you constructed models or played with building blocks,
97
Legos, Lincoln Logs, or other similar stackable toys?” Covariate VIDEO GAMES,
“How often have you played video games?”, showed trends toward significance with
negative effects. Table 4.18 shows the GLM table for this model.
General Linear Model: MT Vis percent versus Lab

Analysis of Variance for MT Vis percent, using Adjusted SS for Tests

MODELS 1 235.83 388.56 388.56 4.48 0.036
SPORTS 1 39.13 78.32 78.32 0.90 0.344
VIDEO GAMES 1 168.05 296.35 296.35 3.42 0.067
MUSIC 1 122.94 86.37 86.37 1.00 0.320
CRAFTS 1 39.87 57.25 57.25 0.66 0.418
Lab 9 915.73 915.73 101.75 1.17 0.318
Error 115 9968.46 9968.46 86.68
Total 129 11490.01
S = 9.31033 R-Sq = 13.24% R-Sq(adj) = 2.68%

Constant 92.015 6.157 14.94 0.000
MODELS 2.250 1.063 2.12 0.036
SPORTS -0.8053 0.8472 -0.95 0.344
VIDEO GAMES -1.4682 0.7941 -1.85 0.067
MUSIC 0.6872 0.6884 1.00 0.320
CRAFTS -0.7697 0.9471 -0.81 0.418
Lab
1B -1.144 3.122 -0.37 0.715
2B 2.547 2.340 1.09 0.279
3A 2.041 2.436 0.84 0.404
3B -1.790 2.710 -0.66 0.510
4A -2.161 2.258 -0.96 0.341
4B 1.471 2.100 0.70 0.485
5A 1.054 2.499 0.42 0.674
5B 4.910 2.561 1.92 0.058
6A -1.655 2.932 -0.56 0.574
Table 4.18: GLM for response of drawing problem scores on midterm exam effects by
Experience score covariates.
98
Drawing assignment visualization-related grades were not significantly affected
by any of the Experience score covariates. However, SPORTS, “How often have you
played sports?”, and HOME IMPROVEMENT, “How often have you fixed things, with a
parent, guardian, other mentor, or on your own, such as working on a car, home
improvements, construction, carpentry, electronics, or other similar activities?”, show
trends toward significance and the lab blocking factor was significant at p<0.0005.
SPORTS had negative effects on the response. Table 4.19 shows the GLM table for this
model.
General Linear Model: DWG Vis Grade percent versus Lab

Analysis of Variance for DWG Vis Grade percent, using Adjusted SS for Tests

SPORTS 1 11.95 64.76 64.76 2.99 0.086
VIDEO GAMES 1 18.59 49.23 49.23 2.27 0.134
Lab 9 831.64 831.64 92.40 4.27 0.000
Error 117 2534.49 2534.49 21.66
Total 129 3614.52
S = 4.65428 R-Sq = 29.88% R-Sq(adj) = 22.69%

Constant 93.113 2.593 35.91 0.000
SPORTS -0.7300 0.4222 -1.73 0.086
VIDEO GAMES -0.5718 0.3793 -1.51 0.134
Lab
1B 3.062 1.573 1.95 0.054
2B 3.112 1.177 2.64 0.009
3A 2.976 1.210 2.46 0.015
3B 1.541 1.321 1.17 0.246
4A -0.404 1.127 -0.36 0.721
4B -0.572 1.056 -0.54 0.589
5A -4.204 1.231 -3.41 0.001
5B -0.052 1.277 -0.04 0.968
6A -0.545 1.459 -0.37 0.710
Table 4.19: GLM for drawing assignment visualization grades effects by Experience
score covariates.
99
utilization access within the treatment group follows. Achieving full rank data initially
required filtering to remove zeros from PSVT—R pre- and post-test scores, and blanks in
the Experience scores, and missing or zero grades. In addition, this subsample only
involved treatment group participants, leaving n=52.
Absolute animation tool usage, time spent, and number of online visits to the
animations, the utilization measures, do not significantly affect drawing assignment
visualization-reliant grades. As shown in Tables 4.20 and 4.21, usage and number of
visits do not show significant effects (p=0.122, 0.070, respectively).
100
General Linear Model: DWG Vis Grade percent versus Lab, Used?

Used? random 2 0, 1

PSVT-R PRE 1 143.21 124.11 124.11 7.46 0.009
Lab 9 378.62 396.07 44.01 2.64 0.016
Used? 1 41.45 41.45 41.45 2.49 0.122
Error 41 682.51 682.51 16.65
Total 52 1245.78
S = 4.08003 R-Sq = 45.21% R-Sq(adj) = 30.52%

Constant 81.805 3.629 22.54 0.000
PSVT-R PRE 0.4049 0.1483 2.73 0.009
Lab
1B 3.025 2.012 1.50 0.140
2B 3.740 1.790 2.09 0.043
3A 3.671 1.591 2.31 0.026
3B -0.722 3.788 -0.19 0.850
4A 1.655 1.437 1.15 0.256
4B -0.820 1.548 -0.53 0.599
5A -3.982 1.961 -2.03 0.049
5B -0.497 1.559 -0.32 0.752
6A -1.582 2.026 -0.78 0.439
Used?
0 -1.0797 0.6843 -1.58 0.122
Table 4.20: Effects of animation tool usage on drawing visualization grades.
101


PSVT-R PRE 1 143.21 129.90 129.90 7.98 0.007
Overall Number of Visits 1 86.65 56.38 56.38 3.46 0.070
Lab 9 348.35 348.35 38.71 2.38 0.029
Error 41 667.58 667.58 16.28
Total 52 1245.78
S = 4.03514 R-Sq = 46.41% R-Sq(adj) = 32.04%

Constant 80.989 3.669 22.07 0.000
PSVT-R PRE 0.4153 0.1471 2.82 0.007
Overall Numb 0.1931 0.1038 1.86 0.070
Lab
1B 3.153 1.969 1.60 0.117
2B 3.150 1.765 1.79 0.082
3A 3.400 1.532 2.22 0.032
3B -0.663 3.737 -0.18 0.860
4A 1.477 1.432 1.03 0.308
4B -0.679 1.538 -0.44 0.661
5A -4.485 1.964 -2.28 0.028
5B -0.065 1.581 -0.04 0.968
6A -1.513 2.001 -0.76 0.454
Table 4.21: Effects of animation tool visits on drawing visualization grades.
Once again animation tool usage, time spent, and number of online visits to the
animations do not significantly affect midterm exam visualization-reliant grades. As
shown in Table 4.22, however, number of visits does trend towards significance
(p=0.100).
102


PSVT-R PRE 1 195.03 196.46 196.46 4.21 0.046
Overall Number of Visits 1 124.45 131.84 131.84 2.83 0.100
Lab 9 570.16 570.16 63.35 1.36 0.238
Error 41 1911.03 1911.03 46.61
Total 52 2800.67
S = 6.82719 R-Sq = 31.77% R-Sq(adj) = 13.46%

Constant 78.074 6.207 12.58 0.000
PSVT-R PRE 0.5108 0.2488 2.05 0.046
Overall Numb 0.2953 0.1756 1.68 0.100
Lab
1B -4.412 3.331 -1.32 0.193
2B 4.460 2.986 1.49 0.143
3A 2.823 2.593 1.09 0.283
3B -5.508 6.322 -0.87 0.389
4A 3.327 2.422 1.37 0.177
4B 2.188 2.603 0.84 0.406
5A -0.074 3.324 -0.02 0.982
5B 4.266 2.675 1.59 0.119
6A -2.947 3.385 -0.87 0.389
Table 4.22: Effects of animation tool visits on midterm exam visualization grades.
Further analysis involves examining the drawing assignment relying heavily on
visualization skills which invoked the most accesses by students of the corresponding
animations. The animations of Drawing 11 were fully accessed by 19 students. Others
accessed some, but not all of the related animations for this assignment. A t-test, in Table
4.23, shows that students scored significantly better on average if they used the animation
tool (p=0.045). In this scenario, n=245 because only zeros for Drawing 11 and the
PSVT—R pre-test were screened.
103
t‐Test: Two‐Sample Assuming Equal
Variances
Used DWG11 Did not use DWG11

Tool Tool
Mean 18.07894737 16.12389381
Variance 5.673976608 24.54235988
Observations 19 226
Pooled Variance 23.14470186
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 243
t Stat 1.701299768
P(T<=t) one‐tail 0.045082919
t Critical one‐tail 1.651148402
P(T<=t) two‐tail 0.090165838
t Critical two‐tail 1.969774341
Table 4.23: T-test for Drawing 11 scores of those using the Drawing 11 animation tool
versus those who did not use the tool.
In addition, when accounting for pre-test scores in a GLM, as shown in Table 4.24, usage
of the animation tool for Drawing 11 also shows significance (p=0.022).
104
General Linear Model: DWG11 versus USED?

USED? random 2 0, 1
Analysis of Variance for DWG11, using Adjusted SS for Tests

PRE 1 193.82 244.43 244.43 11.00 0.001
USED? 1 117.61 117.61 117.61 5.29 0.022
Error 242 5379.73 5379.73 22.23
Total 244 5691.15
S = 4.71490 R-Sq = 5.47% R-Sq(adj) = 4.69%

Constant 12.341 1.542 8.00 0.000
PRE 0.21766 0.06564 3.32 0.001
USED?
0 -1.3164 0.5723 -2.30 0.022
Table 4.24: GLM for Drawing 11 animation tool usage effects on Drawing 11 grades.
utilization access within the treatment group follows. Achieving full rank data required
filtering to remove zeros from PSVT—R pre-test scores, blanks in the Experience scores,
and missing or zero grades, leaving n=124.
As shown in Tables 4.25 through 4.30, PSVT—R pre-test scores were highly
significant in their effects on all grades, in every scenario conceived (p<0.012 for
PSVT—R pre-test effects in all cases).
105
General Linear Model: Fin grade no team, no attend, versus Lab

Analysis of Variance for Fin grade no team, no attend,, using Adjusted SS for
Tests

PSVT-R PRE 1 482.68 341.82 341.82 20.10 0.000
Lab 9 173.65 173.65 19.29 1.13 0.345
Error 113 1921.87 1921.87 17.01
Total 123 2578.20
S = 4.12404 R-Sq = 25.46% R-Sq(adj) = 18.86%

Constant 79.910 2.121 37.67 0.000
PSVT-R PRE 0.39922 0.08905 4.48 0.000
Lab
1B -0.269 1.366 -0.20 0.844
2B 1.189 1.176 1.01 0.314
3A 2.493 1.097 2.27 0.025
3B -0.888 1.132 -0.78 0.435
4A -0.237 1.027 -0.23 0.818
4B 0.4739 0.9321 0.51 0.612
5A -0.791 1.057 -0.75 0.456
5B 1.092 1.132 0.96 0.337
6A -1.723 1.292 -1.33 0.185
Table 4.25: Effects of PSVT—R pre-test scores on all grades.
106
General Linear Model: Fin grade NO DWG vis, no etc versus Lab

Analysis of Variance for Fin grade NO DWG vis, no etc, using Adjusted SS for
Tests

PSVT-R PRE 1 498.26 365.90 365.90 19.27 0.000
Lab 9 176.68 176.68 19.63 1.03 0.418
Error 113 2145.79 2145.79 18.99
Total 123 2820.74
S = 4.35767 R-Sq = 23.93% R-Sq(adj) = 17.20%

Constant 79.304 2.241 35.38 0.000
PSVT-R PRE 0.41304 0.09409 4.39 0.000
Lab
1B -0.680 1.443 -0.47 0.639
2B 0.945 1.243 0.76 0.448
3A 2.436 1.160 2.10 0.038
3B -1.144 1.196 -0.96 0.341
4A -0.345 1.085 -0.32 0.751
4B 0.6766 0.9849 0.69 0.494
5A -0.364 1.117 -0.33 0.745
5B 1.346 1.196 1.13 0.263
6A -1.897 1.365 -1.39 0.167
Table 4.26: Effects of PSVT—R pre-test scores on all but Drawing assignments.
107
General Linear Model: Non-vis, no final, no team, etc versus Lab

Analysis of Variance for Non-vis, no final, no team, etc, using Adjusted SS for
Tests

PSVT-R PRE 1 122.051 79.423 79.423 10.64 0.001
Lab 9 219.490 219.490 24.388 3.27 0.001
Error 112 836.350 836.350 7.467
Total 122 1177.891
S = 2.73266 R-Sq = 29.00% R-Sq(adj) = 22.66%

Constant 88.208 1.457 60.56 0.000
PSVT-R PRE 0.19890 0.06099 3.26 0.001
Lab
1B 0.8773 0.9050 0.97 0.334
2B 1.4185 0.7794 1.82 0.071
3A 2.4225 0.7271 3.33 0.001
3B -0.3676 0.7504 -0.49 0.625
4A -1.4341 0.6813 -2.10 0.038
4B 0.4263 0.6177 0.69 0.491
5A -1.2467 0.7246 -1.72 0.088
5B 0.1097 0.7502 0.15 0.884
6A -2.5795 0.8568 -3.01 0.003
Table 4.27: Effects of PSVT—R pre-test scores on all but Drawing assignments and
exam Drawing grades.
108
General Linear Model: Vis Grade percent versus Lab

Analysis of Variance for Vis Grade percent, using Adjusted SS for Tests

PSVT-R PRE 1 499.51 290.30 290.30 9.76 0.002
Lab 9 476.76 476.76 52.97 1.78 0.080
Error 112 3331.70 3331.70 29.75
Total 122 4307.96
S = 5.45411 R-Sq = 22.66% R-Sq(adj) = 15.76%

Constant 82.677 2.907 28.44 0.000
PSVT-R PRE 0.3803 0.1217 3.12 0.002
Lab
1B 0.791 1.806 0.44 0.662
2B 3.408 1.556 2.19 0.031
3A 1.994 1.451 1.37 0.172
3B -0.485 1.498 -0.32 0.747
4A 0.950 1.360 0.70 0.486
4B -0.035 1.233 -0.03 0.978
5A -2.155 1.446 -1.49 0.139
5B 1.082 1.497 0.72 0.471
6A -1.201 1.710 -0.70 0.484
Table 4.28: Effects of PSVT—R pre-test scores on Drawing assignment and exam
Drawing grades.
109


PSVT-R PRE 1 337.08 178.57 178.57 10.54 0.002
Lab 9 835.84 835.84 92.87 5.48 0.000
Error 112 1897.83 1897.83 16.94
Total 122 3070.75
S = 4.11642 R-Sq = 38.20% R-Sq(adj) = 32.68%

Constant 84.623 2.194 38.57 0.000
PSVT-R PRE 0.29824 0.09187 3.25 0.002
Lab
1B 3.171 1.363 2.33 0.022
2B 3.251 1.174 2.77 0.007
3A 2.975 1.095 2.72 0.008
3B 1.278 1.130 1.13 0.261
4A 0.694 1.026 0.68 0.500
4B -1.2218 0.9304 -1.31 0.192
5A -4.557 1.092 -4.17 0.000
5B -1.030 1.130 -0.91 0.364
6A -0.222 1.291 -0.17 0.863
Table 4.29: Effects of PSVT—R pre-test scores on Drawing assignment grades.
110


PSVT-R PRE 1 618.29 374.63 374.63 6.59 0.012
Lab 9 513.63 513.63 57.07 1.00 0.442
Error 112 6370.23 6370.23 56.88
Total 122 7502.15
S = 7.54169 R-Sq = 15.09% R-Sq(adj) = 7.51%

Constant 81.449 4.020 20.26 0.000
PSVT-R PRE 0.4320 0.1683 2.57 0.012
Lab
1B -0.710 2.498 -0.28 0.777
2B 3.506 2.151 1.63 0.106
3A 1.375 2.007 0.69 0.495
3B -1.597 2.071 -0.77 0.442
4A 1.112 1.880 0.59 0.556
4B 0.714 1.705 0.42 0.676
5A -0.641 2.000 -0.32 0.749
5B 2.414 2.070 1.17 0.246
6A -1.818 2.365 -0.77 0.444
Table 4.30: Effects of PSVT—R pre-test scores on Drawing midterm exam grades.
A final analysis is run screening only for midterm exam data, PSVT—R pre-test
scores availability, and Experience information, resulting in n=187. In this instance, both
overall Experience composite score (p=0.019) and PSVT—R pre-test (0.009) covariates
are significant. This is shown in Table 4.31.
111
General Linear Model: MT 1,3,4 Total versus Lab

Analysis of Variance for MT 1,3,4 Total, using Adjusted SS for Tests

PSVT-R PRE 1 410.40 325.27 325.27 6.94 0.009
L Total 1 204.04 262.77 262.77 5.61 0.019
Lab 9 436.55 436.55 48.51 1.04 0.414
Error 175 8201.17 8201.17 46.86
Total 186 9252.17
S = 6.84572 R-Sq = 11.36% R-Sq(adj) = 5.79%

Constant 43.375 4.003 10.84 0.000
PSVT-R PRE 0.3048 0.1157 2.63 0.009
L Total 0.2553 0.1078 2.37 0.019
Lab
1B -1.743 1.810 -0.96 0.337
2B 2.134 1.778 1.20 0.232
3A -1.859 1.382 -1.34 0.180
3B -2.607 1.432 -1.82 0.070
4A -0.411 1.405 -0.29 0.770
4B 1.127 1.335 0.84 0.400
5A 1.249 1.470 0.85 0.397
5B 0.968 1.541 0.63 0.531
6A 1.465 1.551 0.94 0.346
Table 4.31: Effects of PSVT—R pre-test scores and Experience composite scores on
Drawing midterm exam grades.
Finally, the scatterplot of Drawing 11 grades plotted against PSVT—R pre-test
scores by usage (Figure 4.4) shows an overall gain for the grade by those who used the
animation and shows a leveling of the advantage students with higher PSVT—R test
scores may have in visualization-reliant assignments, to some extent nullifying the grade
advantage of those who scored higher initially on the PSVT—R.
112
Scatterplot of DWG11 vs PRE
USED?
25
0
1
20
15
DWG11
10
10 15 20 25 30
PRE
Figure 4.4: Drawing 11 grades plotted against PSVT—R pre-test scores by animation
tool usage.
Student Feedback
Questionnaire
Students were emailed a questionnaire after the course was completed to gauge their
general impressions and reactions; to verify study validity regarding animation access
between groups; and to solicit suggestions. All students who provided consent (273)
were emailed. After a week without a response, another email was sent. Four emails
were returned by the mail server. Sixteen replies were eventually received, nine from the
control group and seven from the treatment group. All students who replied from the
113
control group did not know about the animations’ availability and/or did not ever access
them. Following is a listing of the questions sent with a summary of responses from the
treatment group students below each question. A full copy of the script from the email is
provided in Appendix C.
questions.
Yes.
Received an email.
Yes. One student reported a technical issue that was resolved.
N/A.
No.
One forgot about the tool’s availability on Carmen. Another generally finished
their work in class. Another already felt comfortable with their visualization
skills and did not feel they needed the animations.
114
They were helpful in visualizing the objects.
“Yes, because it's good to see the object from all angles.”
“I think it does give a bit more detail to overall structure when learning about
engineering drawings.”
involving drawings, or something else.
“When I first started drawing isometric drawings I had difficulty visualizing, but I
remember the tool on Carmen helped me think about when it rotated. It also
helped me see things I missed when I drew them.”
“I found it helpful, especially in visualizing orthographic drawings and the
Purdue Spatial Visualization Test.”
Yes.
Yes.
115
Yes.
“Yes, the animations were I thought were a very useful tool to help see how to
draw it. Sometimes I would use the animation more than once on a drawing
because I kept on missing part of the object I could not see before.”
students?
Allow the user to manipulate the objects in all directions. Make the tool available
to everyone, “especially for students who don’t have drawing experience like
me.”
Focus Group
Along with the questionnaire, students were emailed an invitation after the course
was completed to participate in a focus group. All students who provided consent (273)
were emailed. After a week without a response, another email was sent. Four emails
were returned by the mail server. Sixteen replies were eventually received, nine from the
control group and seven from the treatment group. Only one student showed interest in
participating in the focus group, but did not reply after several attempts to schedule a
discussion. A full copy of the script from the email, the same script as the questionnaire,
is provided in Appendix C.
116
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study investigated whether virtual 3-dimensional animated models of
existing, assigned, paper-based engineering graphics problems can be used as an effective
instructional tool that enables students to enhance their spatial visualization skills. This
study also used data collected to investigate the relationship between developmental
activities and student initial spatial visualization abilities and visualization gains after
instruction and/or treatment. This investigation also sought to determine the relationship
between initial spatial visualization skills and both heavily visualization-reliant and less
visualization-reliant assignment grades.
An underlying theme of this investigation involved using readily available
resources within the program offering the introductory engineering course. An objective
was to show that such an undertaking could use existing technology accessible to an
academic department or program and could be run in the background with minimal
disruption to instruction and students, while collecting and analyzing a large dataset with
hundreds of participants. This girded the activities in this investigation, particularly the
data collection, administration of indirect instructional devices, and enforcement of the
research design.
117
Discussion and Conclusions
Discussion and Conclusions of Results
The first hypothesis tested the effects on spatial visualization gains due to
treatment, or free tool access. Participants in the treatment group, those who had free
access to the spatial visualization instructional animations, scored higher on the PSVT—
R post-test as a result of being in the treatment group versus the control group, with pre-
test scores considered.
While at first this seems to validate the application of the animation tool as an
open access aid for improving spatial visualization skills, further analysis is warranted for
confirmation, and this will lower the confidence in the effects of the tool itself. The
significantly higher mean test score may be a result of random fluctuation, resulting in a
Type I error. The mean score of the treatment group was nearly one half of a point
greater than that of the control group. If they were randomly performing below ability,
and then randomly performed above ability during the post-test, falsely significant results
may ensue.
The second hypothesis tested the effects on spatial visualization gains due to tool
utilization access within the treatment group. Although total time spent using animations
was significant with slightly negative effects in one scenario, animation utilization did
not appear to generally have significant effects on spatial visualization improvement.
118
However, a scenario in which the Boolean tool usage random factor to determine
the effects of using the tool in any capacity on the response was employed showed that
usage may have negative effects on post-test PSVT—R scores when considering pre-test
PSVT—R scores.
It is apparent here that, rather than augmenting existing student transformational
actions on objects and their representations, students may be replacing the substantial
effort involved in holistically determining the drawn object’s mental orientations in space
as it transitions to the new orientation to be depicted, as demanded by the homework
assignment, by another set of more passive transformations whereby the student is
provided with a dynamic, continuous set of external representations. It is not to say that
both are not helpful, but it would likely be more beneficial for the student to use both.
Perhaps, if the animation tool was an additive activity, rather than a substitutive one as it
appears to have become, it would result in a net gain in student spatial visualization
development. In other words, this animation tool in the setting it was presented may have
replaced student developmental scaffolding rather than provide additional scaffolding,
and the two may not be equivalent, possibly resulting in a net loss in development.
Future iterations of this instructional tool should ensure that it is in fact additive
and not substitutive, or even worse, a crutch in that it substitutes spatial visualization
development through a traditional approach to the assignment with a shortcut. One way
to implement this involves providing access to the tool after the due date listed on the
assignment schedule. Students in ENG 181 are permitted to redo assignments if they
score below a threshold score, with a maximum redo score of 70% of the total point value
of the assignment. This could address students who “just can’t see it” may free Graduate
119
Teaching Associate time, and provide an incentive for students to review their graded
work. This also addresses student comments received in the emailed survey, where the
animation tool was praised for allowing them to see the objects depicted in orientations
they had not themselves been able to conceive.Another approach would to provide
animations for an alternate problem set in the form of practice problems rather than the
existing assigned problems.
Previous investigations (Sorby & Baartmans, 1996, 2000; Zavotka, 1987) show
that virtual 3-D animations and/or computer-based spatial visualization remediation is
effective. In these cases, the treatments were external to existing participant activities,
and therefore not substitutive. It is also possible that the amount of development
provided by regular instruction in ENG 181 diffused the gains made through the use of
the animation tool, considering the average time spent on the animations was only 34
minutes, compared to the magnitude of practice throughout the term of the course.
The next hypothesis tested the effects on spatial visualization ability
improvements due to developmental experiences. The magnitude of student-reported
experiences working around the house on home improvement projects (HOME
IMPROVEMENT) and drafting, design and sketching experiences (DRAFTING) showed
some notable but not significant negative effects on spatial visualization gains, but
interacted positively (also not significant) with pre-test scores on spatial visualization
gains.
120
It is apparent here that the those students with high Experience scores in these
categories already scored near the ceiling of the PSVT—R test. Thus, their potential
gains were truncated by the test maximum score.
The fourth hypothesis tested the effects on initial spatial visualization ability due
to developmental experiences. Total experience scores showed significant effects on
spatial visualization ability. Individual Experience scores showed significant effects on
initial spatial visualization ability for those students reporting personal experiences
playing with models and building block-type toys (MODELS), playing sports (SPORTS),
and involvement in music (MUSIC), but SPORTS showed negative effects.
The significance of MODELS on spatial visualization ability confirms the
findings of others (Deno, 1995) in that this type of developmental activity seems to be
one of the strongest indicators of spatial visualization ability. Is it because of an existing
early ability and an innate interest in such things that spatial ability and experiences with
building blocks and stackable toys and models coincide, or is it causal? Spatial
visualization gender gap studies would suggest otherwise, where girls lacking early
exposure to such activities as a result of culture quickly close the gap later in life once
given the opportunity to develop in this manner when they are older. If gender roles were
less distinct, the gap may be smaller.
The negative effects of sports may be a result of the time sports take away from
other activities that develop these skills. Sports may help more with developing skills for
the mental manipulation of perspective, or spatial orientation, rather than the
121
manipulation of objects, or spatial visualization, although the two are related (Lord &
Garrison, 1998).
The fifth hypothesis tested the effects on heavily visualization-dependent and
non-visualization grades due to developmental experiences. Home improvement
experiences (HOME IMPROVEMENT) showed significant effects on both heavy
visualization and less-visualization-invoking grades. Video game playing experiences
(VIDEO GAMES) trended toward effects on visualization-related grades as well, but
were not shown to be significant. Play with building block-type toys (MODELS) showed
significant effects on midterm exam visualization-related problem performance. No
significant effects by any of the Experience components were shown for the
visualization-related drawing assignment performance, however SPORTS had some
negative effect, while HOME IMPROVEMENT had some positive effects. The lab
blocking factor showed significance.
Instructional setting and particularly grading plays a large part in the grades of
daily assignments. Once again, MODELS seems to predict visualization skill indicators.
Home improvement experiences that involve working one’s hands may help develop
visualization skills, but perhaps they instill a sense of motivation and work ethic. Further
research should be conducted here, and perhaps the activities listed under HOME
IMPROVEMENT can be broken down and studied again to analyze its components’
effects.
122
The sixth hypothesis tested the effects on spatial visualization gains due to tool
utilization access within the treatment group. Number of visits to the animation tool and
general usage had some not significant effects on visualization-related drawing
assignment grades. However, using a specific example of the grades produced for the
drawing assignment heavy in requisite spatial visualization skills and the corresponding
animations that were accessed by the most participants (allowing for more data points),
grades were shown to be significantly affected by use of the animation tool.
This provides more evidence that such an instructional tool should be applied in
an additive manner rather than used in place of traditional and/or holistic methods, as
discussed earlier.
The final hypothesis tested the effects on spatial visualization gains due to tool
utilization access within the treatment group. Of all the hypotheses tested, spatial
visualization pre-test scores had the most consistent and significant effects on the
response, which in this case was grades. Initial spatial visualization ability is a consistent
predictor of all grades to some extent, and in models where the final grade is concerned,
on its own regularly accounted for 1/6 to 1/5 of the variance of the model. In models
where the response is predominantly related to performance on daily drawing
assignments, it was still consistently significant but only accounted for around 1/10 of the
variance of the model, with lab section gaining more prominence relative to pre-test in
accounting for model variance.
123
The significance of pre-test PSVT—R scores effects on grades highlights the
importance of strong spatial visualization ability. Further efforts to enhance this skill set
are called for, as those with greater spatial visualization skills consistently achieved
higher grades in every facet of ENG 181 (excluding group assignments, which were
removed from the analysis). Research has shown that those with better spatial
visualization skills are better problem solvers (Koch, 2006), and this as well as other
studies show that spatial visualization skills are predictors of grades in first-year
engineering.
These differences in accounted variance also point to the differences in grading
approaches. Final grades are heavily influenced (45%) by exam grades. Exams are
uniformly graded across sections, with a single grader grading all submissions of one
problem, whereas homework grades are graded individually by section.
Survey Responses
Students who responded to the emailed surveys indicated finding use in the
animations, particularly in being able to perceive objects virtually in various orientations.
The most common suggestion was made regarding granting user control over the
orientation and movement of the object.
The response rate here was low (6%) for a number of reasons. The survey was
given well after the conclusion of the class rather than at the end. Stemming from this,
insertion of consent policies and reminders as to the nature of the study and participant
rights may have discouraged reading such a lengthy email and sabotaged further student
involvement. Kaplowitz, Hadlock, and Levine (2004) found an email only survey
response rate of under 21% at Michigan State University in which an underrepresented

124
proportion of the student population under 24 years of age responded. Although the
response rate for this study’s email solicitation is unusually low, it may be expected
considering the respondents’ typical age, the delay in the solicitation, and the amount of
text in the email.
Discussion and Conclusions of Limitations
This study demonstrated that an online, indirect instructional tool can be
implemented and measured for effectiveness in a real setting. However, several factors
affecting some of the results of this study should be noted. First, because of the manner
in which treatment group participants were informed of the tool’s availability, in a private
email, instructional team promotion was not applicable. Generally, when an important
guide or study tool is made available, students are informed and encouraged by
instructional team members to make use of the device. The process by which students
were informed of the availability of the instructional tool may have led to reduced
awareness and utilization of the animations.
Student participation in the devices used for collecting data can be encouraged
through the use of incentives such as bonus points. Half-hearted participation can be
rectified by rewarding students for scoring initially high on PSVT—R tests with bonus
points, and then rewarding them again with more bonus points for showing gains at the
end of the quarter.
Graduate Teaching Associates may also need encouragement, as understandably,
their top priorities in data processing are those items directly related to reporting student
grades. If a study or data collection device is not directly contributing to generating
student grades, they may not see it as a high priority, as may be the case with the
125
problem-by-problem midterm and final exam data. The final exam problem-by-problem
data were not used due to a lack of availability.
The target population of the instructional tool is reduced as a result of an annually
increasing average aptitude and achievement level of incoming freshmen. Considering
the results shown when modeling subsamples of students to the scoring below the spatial
visualization test ceiling, the greater average ability of the sample may also be a
significant contributor to the outcome of some of the analyses. Comparable spatial
visualization tests with a higher test ceiling or increased difficulty could be utilized to test
for the effects on a larger sample. Another option is for the PSVT—R to be extended.
The PSVT—R becomes more difficult as the participant progresses to the latter problems
in the test. Perhaps this could continue for several extra problems to facilitate analyses
for those at all skill levels. Special intelligence quotient tests exist with higher ceilings
for those with greater aptitudes. Perhaps something similar exists or could be developed
in the realm of spatial visualization. However, efforts to include upper echelon students
may not test the effects of the instructional tool on those most in need of remediation
The analyses were also hindered by the need for full rank datasets. In this study it
was necessary to remove the records with empty fields, particularly PSVT—R scores,
Experience scores, and exam problem-by-problem data. Because this study ran alongside
regular instruction and was not a closed experiment with actively proctored devices,
participation rates were unpredictable. This was, however, part of the research design
and a known risk. In the future, this could be alleviated by randomly assigning treatment
and control participants by whole sections, although this may make it difficult to identify
effects due to instructional settings. Another approach could involve splitting treatment
126
and control groups by term, with similar instructional teams in each term, possibly
allowing for valid comparisons without requiring blocking. This assumes lab section
effects are leveled throughout similar instructional settings across the many lab sections
in each term.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Practice
This study employed the use of The Ohio State University’s online course
gradebook and curriculum web application, Carmen, by Desire-to-Learn. This
application was used extensively in nearly every facet of the study. The application was
used to enforce control and treatment group segregation. It was used for data collection
and consolidation. Carmen was also used to selectively release the treatment to the
appropriate group based on user login and access scheduling. It was also an essential
deployment mechanism of the pre- and post-tests. Carmen also tracked the amount of
treatment individuals received and collected online survey and Experience data. The
Carmen web application, and others like it, is a very powerful tool in more ways than
those for which it is typically used. However, its potential has yet to be unleashed.
Although Carmen tracks and records a multitude of data, it is often difficult for
designers or researchers to access this data in a readily useful manner. Much of the data,
aside from regular grade records and calculations, are logged. These data logs require
scripts written by administrators in information technology departments, and even then it
is not yet usable until properly parsed and reoriented, otherwise it is quite cryptic. Even a
127
simple end-user download of survey data, if desired in a format other than the default
generic report layout, is retrieved with a cryptic output that requires further processing.
Software designers should also improve the user interface and tools available to
instructors and designers. Compared to modern spreadsheets, formulae for simple
calculations are too complex to enter and there is no way to query information on a large
gradebook page with many students and many grade fields per student.
Recommendations for Research
Further inquiry as to how viewing virtual 3-D animations of rotating objects on a
computer screen compares to other approaches for developing spatial visualization skills
should be undertaken. Studies featuring multi-level treatments should be conducted to
investigate the best way to provide indirect instruction for students wishing to enhance
their spatial visualization skills while minimizing the burden on first-year program
resources. Can the use of virtual 3-D animations be more effectively combined with
other methods of spatial visualization enhancement? How much of a benefit do students
get from viewing animated depictions of objects after completing assignments involving
those same objects? How does giving students control of the orientation of the object in
virtual 3-D space contribute to developing visualization skills compared to other virtual
3-D animations?
Further investigation should be conducted to ascertain a threshold of spatial
visualization competency measured by a common spatial visualization test, such as the
PSVT—R, for being able to successfully complete a battery of different types of mental
exercises in different disciplines such as mathematics, language, the sciences, etcetera.
Performance on spatial visualization tests seems to be a significant predictor of grades in

128
engineering and other technical fields, but how does this relate to non-technical fields?
Perhaps competency in spatial visualization is more obviously related to music and visual
arts, but how does this relate to achievement in verbal or literary activities? It would be
also useful to investigate the relationship between preferred learning styles and
visualization abilities in individuals across different fields of study.
While it is not possible to capture every facet of a student or any human in a
model, other predictors of student spatial visualization aptitude should be researched. In
addition to developmental experiences, what other indicators of spatial visualization
aptitude are there? Are spatial visualization skills indicators of achievement levels in
non-technical fields? Further investigation is warranted.
More surveys of different visualization tests would be useful. There are many
tests available and many are well documented (Elliot & Smith, 1983), and some have
examined various tests. However, more direction on the application of such tests, ratings
of the difficulty levels, and the typical ceiling of different population samples, e.g.,
engineering students versus middle school math students, would be beneficial. In
addition, a compendium of different visualization tests and whether they are best suited
for testing traditional measures such as spatial visualization ability, spatial orientation
ability, or some form of dynamic visualization ability (now possible with modern
technology), would also be of great use. An inventory of common activities related to the
types of visualization abilities they exercise merits compilation.
To unleash the full potential of Carmen or other similar institutional web
applications, software engineers should consider building in a basic statistical analysis
package, perhaps even one that dynamically updates as data such as grade entries, link or
129
object accesses, or surveys are performed. Such a feature would allow for widespread
educational and institutional quantitative research, allowing faculty to quickly check the
significance a quantity of accesses to a new piece of curriculum has on some response
grade. Perhaps students are not aware and are not accessing a new curriculum piece. If
institutional web applications like Carmen featured imbedded statistical analysis
packages, database query functionality, and spreadsheet-like capabilities and user
interfaces, the sky would be the limit for educational researchers pursuing large-scale
quantitative research projects.
Finally, with an increasing proportion of courses either going fully online or
providing student grades and other data entirely online, course grade applications such as
Carmen need to be more than just repositories of information and data entry devices. If
every simple analysis or presentation requires a complete download of updated data into
a spreadsheet or statistical package, while the download of each data type is of a unique
format, it becomes little more than an unwieldy web device for disseminating information
to students – a mere webpage of grades and a static display of curriculum materials.
130
REFERENCES
Barnea, N., & Dori, Y. J. (1999). High-school chemistry students’ performance and
gender differences in a computerized molecular modeling learning environment.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8, 257-271.
Barr, R. E., Schmidt, P. S., Krueger, T. J., & Twu, C. (2000). An introduction to
engineering through an integrated reverse engineering and design graphics
project. Journal of Engineering Education, 89, 413-417.
Bishop, J. E. (1978). Developing students’ spatial ability. The Science Teacher, 45, 20-
23.
Bodner, G. M., & Guay, R. B. (1997). The Purdue visualization of rotations test. The
Chemical Educator, 2(4).
Bolton, R. W., & Morgan, J. (1997). Engineering graphics in an integrated environment.

Proceedings of the 27th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.
Branoff, T. (1998). Coordinate axes and mental rotation tasks: a dual-coding approach.
Proceedings of the 1998 American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference & Exposition, Seattle, WA, Session 2238.
Branoff, T. (1998). The effects of adding coordinate axes to a mental rotations task in
measuring spatial visualization ability in introductory undergraduate technical
graphics courses. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 62(2), 16-34.
Brenner, M. E., Mayer, R. E., Mosely, B., Brar, T., Duran, R., Reed, B. S., & Webb, D.
(1997). Learning by understanding: the role of multiple representations in
learning algebra. American Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 663-689.
Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). The Case For Constructivist Classrooms.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Carter, C. S., LaRussa, M. A., & Bodner, G. M. (1987). A study of two measures of
spatial ability as predictors of success in different levels of general chemistry.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 645-657.
131
Condoor, S. S. (1999). Integrating design in engineering graphics courses using feature-
based, parametric solid modeling. Proceedings of the 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers
in Education Conference, Session 12d2.
Crown, S. W. (2001). Improving visualization skills of engineering graphics students

using simple JavaScript Web Based Games. Journal of Engineering Education,
90, 347-355.
De Lisi, R., & Wolford, J. L. (2002). Improving children’s mental rotation accuracy with
computer game playing. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163, 272-282.
Retrieved September 5, 2004, from http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/heldref/
Deno, J. A. (1995). The relationship of previous experiences to spatial visualization

ability. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 59(3), 5-17.
Eliot, J., & Smith, I. M. (1983). An international directory of spatial tests. Windsor,
Berkshire: NFER-Nelson.
Friedlander, A., & Tabach, M. (2001). Promoting Multiple Representations in Algebra.

In A. Cuoco (Ed.), The Roles of Representation in School Mathematics (pp. 173-
185). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Gerson, H. B. P., Sorby, S. A., Wysocki, A., & Baartmans, B. J. (2001). The
development and assessment of multimedia software for improving 3-D spatial
visualization skills. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 9, 105-113.
Goldin, G., & Shteingold, N. (2001). Systems of representations and the development of
mathematical concepts. In A. A. Cuoco & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), The roles of
representation in school mathematics: 2001 yearbook (pp. 1-23). Reston, VA:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Greeno, J.G., & Hall, R.P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about
representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 361-367.
Guay, R. B. (1977). Factors affecting the development of two spatial abilities basic to
technical drawing. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 14(3), 38-43.
Guay, R. B., & McDaniel, E.D. (1979). Toward explaining sex differences in spatial
ability: An investigation of selected cultural and neurophysiological factors.
Arlington, VA: Army Research Institude. For the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 185 071)
Guay, R. B., McDaniel, E.D., & Angelo, S. (1978). Analytic factor confounding spatial
ability measurement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
132
Guay, R. B., & McDaniel, E.D. (1982). The relationship between spatial abilities and
social-emotional factors. Lafayette, IN: Purdue University. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 224 810).Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. (2004). A
Dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities.
Intelligence, 32(2), 175-191.
Hsi, S., Linn, M. C., & Bell, J. E. (1997). The role of spatial reasoning in engineering and
the design of spatial instruction. Journal of Engineering Education, 86, 151-158.
Huang, S. H., Bhura K. R., & Wang G. (2000). Cutter path simulation and product
visualization using AutoCAD. Computer Applications in Engineering Education,
8(2).
Janvier, C., Girardon, C., & Morand, J. C. (1993). Mathematics symbols and
representations. In P. S. Wilson (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom: High
school mathematics (pp. 79-102). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, R. (2004). A comparison of web and mail
survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly. 68(1), 94-101.
Koch, D. S. (2006). The effects of solid modeling and visualization on technical problem
solving. Blacksburg, Va: University Libraries, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University.
Kozhevnikov, M., & Thornton, R. (2006). Real-Time Data Display, Spatial Visualization
Ability, and Learning Force and Motion Concepts. Journal Of Science Education
And Technology. 15(1), 111-132.
Kwon, O. N. (2003). Fostering spatial visualization ability through web-based virtual-

reality program and paper-based program. Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
2713, 701-706.
Little, P., & Cardenas, M. (2001). Use of studio methods in the introductory engineering
design curriculum. Journal of Engineering Education, 90, 309-318.
Lohman, D. (1988). Spatial abilities as traits, processes, and knowledge. In R. J.

Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence, Vol. 4,
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 181–248.
Lord, T. R. (1985). Enhancing the visuo-spatial aptitude of students. Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 22, 395-405.
133
Lord, T.R., & Garrison J. (1998). Comparing spatial abilities of collegiate athletes in
different sports. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 86(3), 1016-8.
McDaniel, E.D., Guay, R. B., Ball, L., & Kolloff, M. (1978). A spatial experience
questionnaire and some preliminary findings. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
Morgan, J., & Bolton, R W. (1998). An integrated first-year engineering curricula.

Proceedings of the 28th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.
Newcomer, J. L., McKell, E. K., & Raudebaugh, R. A. (2001). Creating a strong

foundation with engineering design graphics. Engineering Design Graphics
Journal, 65(2).
The Ohio State University, College of Engineering, First-year Engineering Program.

(2003). Summary of Student Learning Styles, ENG 181, Winter Quarter.
Pallrand, G. J. & Seeber, F. (1984). Spatial ability and achievement in introductory

physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 507-516.
Pepin, M., & Dorval, M. (1986). Effect of playing a video game on adults' and
adolescents' spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62, 159-162.
Peters, M, Chisholm, P., & Laeng, B. (1995). Spatial ability, student gender, and
academic performance. Journal of Engineering Education, 84, 69-73.
Piaget, J. (1967). The child’s conception of space. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company, Inc.
Piaget, J. (1976). Psychology of intelligence. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co.
Piaget, J. (2003). Development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.

40, S8-S18.
Piburn, M. D., Reynolds, S. J., McAuliffe, C., Leedy, D. E., Birk, J. P., & Johnson, J. K.
(2005). The Role of Visualization in Learning from Computer-Based Images.
Research Report. International Journal of Science Education. 27(5), 513-527.
Reese, H. W. (1999). Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 25). San Diego:
Academic Press.
134
Rochford, K., Fairall, A. P., Irvings, A., & Hurly, P. (1989). Academic failure and spatial
visualization handicap of undergraduate engineering students. International
Journal of Applied Engineering Education, 5, 741-749.
Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stories.

(pp. 13-26, 143-148). Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher
Education and Open University Press.
Scribner, S. A., & Anderson, M. A. (2005). Novice Drafters' Spatial Visualization

Development: Influence of Instructional Methods and Individual Learning Styles.
Journal of Industrial Teacher Education. 42(2), 38-60.
Sorby, S. A., & Baartmans, B. J. (1996). A course for the development of 3-D spatial
visualization skills. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 60(1), 13-20.
Sorby, S. A., & Baartmans B. J. (2000). The development and assessment of a course for
enhancing the 3-D spatial visualization skills of first year engineering students.
Journal of Engineering Education, 89(3), 301-307.
Sorby, S. A., & Young, M. F. (1998). Assessment of a visualization-based placement

exam for a freshman graphics course. Proceedings of the 1998 American Society
for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Session 2238.
Taylor, M., Pountney, D., & Malabar, I. (2007). Animation as an Aid for the Teaching of
Mathematical Concepts. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 31(3), 249-
261.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). An Exposition of Constructivism: Why Some Like It Radical.

[S.l.]: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Yue, J., & Chen, D. M. (2001). Does CAD improve spatial visualization ability?
Conference & Exposition, Session 2486.
Yue, J. (2002). Do basic mathematical skills improve spatial visualization abilities?

Conference & Exposition, Session 3286.
135
Yue, J. (2002). Spatial visualization skills at various educational levels. Proceedings of
the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference &
Exposition, Session 2438.
Zavotka, S. L. (1987). Three-dimensional computer animated graphics: A tool for spatial

skill instruction. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 35(3),
133-44.
136
APPENDIX A: PURDUE SPATIAL VISUALIZATION TEST – ROTATIONS
(ONLINE VERSION)
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
APPENDIX B: EXPERIENCE SCORE LIKERT-TYPE SURVEY QUESTIONS
153
2007B0293, “Enhancing the Spatial Visualization Skills of First-Year Engineering Students” Survey Questions
1 DRAFTING
How often have you engaged in drafting, design and design sketching, engineering graphics, or other
manual (by hand) technical drawing activities?
Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Always

1 2 3 4 5
How often have you constructed models or played with building blocks, Legos, Lincoln Logs, or other similar
2 MODELS
stackable toys?

1 2 3 4 5
3 SPORTS
How often have you played sports?

1 2 3 4 5
How often have you fixed things, with a parent, guardian, other mentor, or on your own, such as working on a
IMPROVE-
4 HOME
car, home improvements, construction, carpentry, electronics, or other similar activities?

MENT

1 2 3 4 5
How often have you engaged in creating artwork (drawing, graphic design, painting, 3D art, photography,
etc.)?
5 ART

1 2 3 4 5
How often have you played video games?

6 VIDEO
GAMES

1 2 3 4 5
How often have you used Computer Aided Design (CAD) software applications such as AutoCAD,
SolidWorks, Autodesk Inventor, or others?
7 CAD

1 2 3 4 5
How often have you played musical instruments or composed music?

8 MUSIC

1 2 3 4 5
9 CRAFTS
How often have you engaged in crafts (sewing, homemade decorations, pottery, etc.)?

1 2 3 4 5
NAVIGATION
How often have you used maps or navigated in a car, navigated while hiking, etc.?
10

1 2 3 4 5
154
APPENDIX C: SURVEY AND FOCUS GROUP SOLICITATION
155
Enhancing Spatial Visualization Skills in First-Year Engineering Students
Yosef Allam
03-09-09
Post-study Survey and Focus Group Feedback Solicitation
Survey Text and Questions:
Hello,
My name is Yosef Allam, and I need just a few minutes of your time. I am finishing a
study to help engineering students with their visualization skills which I conducted in
your ENG 181 class in WI08, as you may recall from my address to your class that
quarter.
In ENG 181 in WI08, an instructional tool was provided on a trial basis to half of the
students via links on the Carmen “Content” page, after logging in, which consisted of
animations of daily assignments in Basics, showing a video, viewable in Windows Media
Player. These were video animations of parts you were to draw as part of your daily
assignments rotating to and from isometric and orthographic positions. The goal of this
trial offering of these animations was to determine whether or not such a tool would help
students with their visualization skills (per test results of the Purdue Spatial Visualization
Test you took via Carmen online at the beginning and end of the WI08 academic quarter)
and to aid students in understanding how an object correctly translates from an
orthographic to isometric depiction, and vice versa.
There are just a few questions I would like to ask you regarding this. All you have to do
is reply to this email. Your identity will not be used, and this is only meant to gauge
general student impressions towards the use of the tool for future use and for research
purposes. By answering these questions, you are helping future engineering students at
The Ohio State University College of Engineering. To jog your memory, I have attached
a sample animation that was used last year and is similar to the other animations that
were made available to some students. Thanks in advance for your time and cooperation.
questions.
156
involving drawings, or something else. (possibly check boxes)
students?
If you did use the instructional tool (you viewed the animations while taking ENG 181 in
WI08), would you be interested in some free pizza? All you have to do is come in to a
focus group session on campus to discuss the animation tool with other former students
of ENG 181 from WI08. It should take only 30 minutes of your time, it’s a chance to
reconnect with some fellow students from last year, and there’s free food! We will audio
record the group’s conversation, but will not use your identity. If you are interested,
please indicate so in your reply to this email and please provide your availability during
the week and you will be given further details.
Per Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements, we must acquire your consent to
participate in this research endeavor. By replying to this email with responses to the
survey questions, or by indicating a willingness to participate in the focus group and
showing up for it, your consent will be assumed to have been given. Your name or any
other identifying information will not be used in the research or subsequent publications.
Thanks again and good luck in your studies!
-Yosef Allam
157
Focus Group Starter Questions and Discussion topics:
1. Was availability of animation well-communicated? If not, how could this be

improved. (Information was provided via email).
2. Did the instructional team encourage use, discourage use, or were indifferent
about the animation tool?
3. How did you find it useful?
4. Did you believe you needed help with visualizing rotated objects?
5. Did you believe you needed help with visualizing objects depicted
orthographically?
6. Did you believe you needed help with visualizing objects depicted isometrically?
7. What areas of visualization or course assignments or exams and tests did it
specifically help you with?
8. How else did you find it useful?
9. How could it be more useful?
10. Do you believe that having good visualization skills is important to being an
engineer? How? Why? As a student? As a future professional?
11. Any other suggestions?
12. Do you have any questions for me?
158
APPENDIX D: RELEVANT ENG 181 WINTER 2008 DRAWING ASSIGNMENTS
159
160
161
DWG: Orthographic from Isometric (hidden line practice) Grading
Guidelines
Points
Part A 8
Extra line ½ each up to 1
Missing visible line ½ each up to 2
Missing hidden line 1
Wrong view orientation 3
Neatness 1
Part B 8
Extra line ½ each up to 2
Missing visible line ½ each up to 2
Missing hidden line 1
Wrong view orientation 3
Neatness 1
Title Information 4
Incomplete title information ½ for each one, up to 2 point
No use of engineering letters 2
Total 20
162
163
164
165
166
DWG: Orthographic to Isometric Drawings B15 & B16
Points
Incorrect shape or dimensions 2 each feature max. 12
Incorrect orientation of views 1 each max. 2
Missing center lines 1 each max. 3
Incomplete title information ½ each max. 1
No use of engineering letters 1 point
Neatness 1
Total 20
167
168
169
170
DWG: Missing Lines with Isometrics. Grading Guidelines
Points
Missing Line 10
Incorrect line (including drawing more 1½ each up to 9
than one line)
Neatness ½
Incomplete title information or not use ½
of engineering letters
Isometric Views 10
Isometric view according to the 1 each up to 6
orthographic views
Wrong orientation of the object ½ each up to 2
Neatness 1
Incomplete title information or not use 1
of engineering letters
Total 20
Note: If the student doesn’t rotate the isometric paper, the

isometric views will not really be an isometric view and the
assignment will have a max of 10 points. The student has the
option to redo the complete assignment with late penalty (max. 14
points).
171
APPENDIX E: ENG 181 WINTER 2008 DAILY ASSIGNMENT LIST
172
173
APPENDIX F: CONSENT DOCUMENTATION
174
2007B0293, “Enhancing the Spatial Visualization Skills of First-Year Engineering
Students” Debriefing Script
Thank you for your participation in our research study, “Enhancing the Spatial
Visualization Skills of First-Year Engineering Students”.
I would like to discuss with you in more detail the study you just participated in.
As you may know, scientific methods sometimes require that subjects in research
studies not be given complete information about the research until after the
experiment is completed. Although we cannot always tell you everything before
you begin your participation, we do want to tell you everything when the
experiment is completed.
Before I tell you about all the goals of this study, however, I want to explain why it
is necessary in some kinds of studies to not tell people about the purpose of the
study before they begin.
Discovering how people would naturally react is what we are really trying to find
out in behavioral experiments. We don't always tell people everything at the
beginning of a study because we do not want to influence your responses. If we
tell people what the purpose of the experiment is and what we predict about how
they will react, then their reactions would not be a good indication of how they
would react in everyday situations.
Now, I would like to explain exactly what we were trying to study in this
investigation.
Students enrolled in ENG 181 course sections in Winter 2008 (WI08) were given
a PSVT-R (Purdue Spatial Visualization Test – Rotations) pre-test. They also
completed a survey, in this case an augmented version of the “Journal Entry 1,”
already in existence, to collect experiential data. Enrollees were not informed of
the study in advance to protect study validity and to simulate the voluntary
nature of online instructional tool usage. Those randomly selected as treatment
group participants were granted instructional tool usage via links on the
“Content” page of their Carmen course application. These links selectively
opened for treatment group participants when the relevant engineering graphics
drawing was assigned, and closed at the due date of the assignment. Link
access tracking in Carmen is built into the application, so utilization data was
readily available for each treatment group participant. All participant data were
stored within the Carmen gradebook. At the conclusion of study, coinciding with
the conclusion of the WI08 term, all students took the PSVT-R post-test and
were emailed this study debriefing and were instructed to reply to opt-out. The
instructional tool tested consisted of animations of ENG 181 Daily Assignment
drawings. Any effect on grades will be leveled in the interest of fairness
between control and treatment group participants who also happen to be
175
students receiving grades in ENG 181 in WI08. This study has been approved
by the Institutional Review Board and the Director of the Fundamentals of
Engineering Program, John Merrill, and the Associate Dean of the College of
Engineering, Robert Gustafson.
To summarize, the goals of this study included gauging how your past
experiences shape your spatial visualization abilities and your ability to further
enhance your spatial visualization abilities. In addition, the effectiveness of a
spatial visualization tool is being gauged to determine how it can be augmented
and whether some version of it should be used in the future in the Fundamentals
of Engineering Program. Once again, it important to emphasize that all
necessary steps are being taken to make sure that status as a treatment versus
control group participant does not unfairly affect your grades and the grades of
your peers. Your participation is greatly appreciated and will help future
students in the program.
If other people knew the true nature of the experiment, it would affect how they
behave, so we are asking you not to share the information we just discussed.
Now that the study has been explained, do you agree to allow the investigator to
use your data that we collected from your participation in this study? All
identifying and confidential information that would tie you to grades and test
scores will be stripped from our records and destroyed within 2 weeks after
sending this message. If you would like abstain from participation in this study,
please email Yosef Allam (allam.1@osu.edu) as soon as possible. If you choose
to abstain, all records pertaining to you and the data collected as a result of your
individual participation will be destroyed as well, and the results studied,
reported, analyzed, etc., will not reflect any data tied to you. If you do not contact
the Investigators to abstain, it will be assumed that you agree to participate.
I hope you enjoyed your experience and I hope you found the instructional tool, if
you had access to it as a member of the treatment group, useful.
If you have any questions later please feel free to contact me.
Yosef Allam, Co-Investigator (contact person)

614-657-2254
allam.1@osu.edu
Clark Mount-Campbell, Principal Investigator

mount-campbell.1@osu.edu
Thank you again for your participation.
176
The Ohio State University Consent to Participate in Research
Enhancing the Spatial Visualization Skills of First-Year
Study Title:
Engineering Students
Researcher: Clark Mount-Campbell
Sponsor:
This is a consent form for research participation. It contains important information

about this study and what to expect if you decide to participate.
Your participation is voluntary.

Please consider the information carefully. Feel free to ask questions before making your
decision whether or not to participate. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to
sign this form and will receive a copy of the form.
Purpose:
You are being asked to participate in this study because we are investigating the
effectiveness of an animated visualization tool we hope will provide for the enhancement
of your and future students’ visualization skills. We are gauging the tool’s effectiveness
via the “Purdue Spatial Visualization Test – Rotations,” which you took at the
commencement and conclusion of this academic quarter. We are also trying to gauge
how your prior experiences in activities that have been related through other research to
strong spatial visualization skills affect your initial spatial visualization performance, as
well as how well these experiences affect the gains you can make after using the
visualization tool. Your experience levels in these areas were collected when you
completed 10 five-point questions in Journal Entry 1 at the beginning of the academic
quarter.
Procedures/Tasks:
The activities you performed this quarter that were above and beyond standard ENG 181
tasks include three items: the 10 seven-point experiential survey questions that were
added to the existing version of Journal Entry 1, the animated visualization tool that half
of you randomly received which we are evaluating, and this consent form. Your
participation involves granting permission to use data for research purposes that has
already been collected to evaluate the visualization tool. We are seeking permission to
use the data from the three items above, in addition to relevant performance metrics that
include your grades that pertain to spatial visualization and the results of your Purdue
Spatial Visualization Tests. Once these consent forms have been processed, the records
of those providing consent will be kept for analysis purposes, but any identifying
information attached to these records will be stripped.
177
Duration:
You may leave the study at any time. If you decide to stop participating in the study,
there will be no penalty to you, and you will not lose any benefits to which you are
otherwise entitled. Your decision will not affect your future relationship with The Ohio
State University.
Risks and Benefits:

Risks to participants in the form of privacy and identity are minimal in that only one
person will administer, collect, and analyze the data. This person will strip the data of
identifying fields after these consent forms have been processed. Similarly, there is also
a minor, also incrementally small risk involved in course performance information
leaking out to unauthorized persons. Once again, all identifying information will be
stripped upon receipt and processing of these consent forms.
You may have the satisfaction of knowing that your participation in this study may help
future students at the university through continuous improvements to the First-Year
Engineering Program. Research of this type has the underlying goal of improving
educational practices for current and future students.
CONFIDENTIALITY:
Efforts will be made to keep your study-related information confidential. However, there
may be circumstances where this information must be released. For example, personal
information regarding your participation in this study may be disclosed if required by
state law. Also, your records may be reviewed by the following groups (as applicable to
the research):
 Office for Human Research Protections or other federal, state, or international
regulatory agencies;
 The Ohio State University Institutional Review Board or Office of Responsible
Research Practices;
 The sponsor, if any, or agency (including the Food and Drug Administration for
FDA-regulated research) supporting the study.
Incentives:
You will not be paid to participate in the study.
PARTICIPANT RIGHTS:
You may refuse to participate in this study without penalty or loss of benefits to which
you are otherwise entitled. If you are a student or employee at Ohio State, your decision
will not affect your grades or employment status.
If you choose to participate in the study, you may discontinue participation at any time
without penalty or loss of benefits. By signing this form, you do not give up any personal
legal rights you may have as a participant in this study.
178
An Institutional Review Board responsible for human subjects research at The Ohio State
University reviewed this research project and found it to be acceptable, according to
applicable state and federal regulations and University policies designed to protect the
rights and welfare of participants in research.
CONTACTS AND QUESTIONS:
For questions, concerns, or complaints about the study you may contact Yosef Allam,
allam.1@osu.edu.
For questions about your rights as a participant in this study or to discuss other study-
related concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, you
may contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 1-
800-678-6251.
If you are injured as a result of participating in this study or for questions about a study-
related injury, you may contact Yosef Allam allam.1@osu.edu.
SIGNING THE CONSENT FORM
I have read (or someone has read to me) this form and I am aware that I am being asked
to participate in a research study. I have had the opportunity to ask questions and have
had them answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.
I am not giving up any legal rights by signing this form. I will be given a copy of this
form.
Printed name of subject Signature of subject SEAT #
AM/PM
Date and time
Printed name of person authorized to consent for subject Signature of person authorized to consent for subject
(when applicable) (when applicable)
AM/PM
Relationship to the subject Date and time
Investigator/Research Staff
I have explained the research to the participant or his/her representative before requesting
the signature(s) above. There are no blanks in this document. A copy of this form has
been given to the participant or his/her representative.
Yosef Allam
Printed name of person obtaining consent Signature of person obtaining consent
AM/PM
Date and time
179
APPENDIX G: ENG 181 WINTER 2008 EXAM DRAWING PROBLEMS
180
ENG181 Fundamentals of Engineering Midterm
Problem 1 (15 points)
Using Autodesk Inventor 2008 create a part file that meets the specifications shown in
the drawing immediately below. Once completed, print an isometric view of the object,
including a text block with your name, seat number, instructor, and section as shown
below. Print in landscape mode. Do not leave your seat to pick up your printout, it
will be brought to you.
Your printout should look

like this.
WI08
Name ______________Professor__________________Section_____Seat No._____
181
Directions: On the rectilinear grid make a set of orthographic drawings for the object
shown in the isometric drawing. One unit length in the isometric drawing should
correspond to one unit length on the rectilinear grid. The point A should be located as
shown.
A
A
A A
WI08
182
Directions: On the rectilinear grid make a set of orthographic drawings for the object
shown in the isometric drawing. One unit length in the isometric drawing should
correspond to one unit length on the rectilinear grid. The point A should be located as
shown.
A A
A A
WI08
183
ENG181 Fundamentals of Engineering Final
Directions: Create the following object using Autodesk Inventor Professional 2008.
All dimensions are in inches. Note that the object is symmetric front to back and
the hole on the right side is a blind hole .5 in deep. Then create a drawing with
orthographic views using A-size paper and a title block. Include TOP-FRONT-RIGHT
views and an isometric view in their standard locations. Do NOT include centerlines
or dimensions. Edit the title block to include your name and information. Title the
drawing “ENG181 Exam Object”. Call it Drawing Number 1. Don’t leave your seat, your
printout will be returned to you. At the end of the exam, staple your printout to the
front of this page. Save your work on the desktop!
Note: If you can't remember how to create a drawing with orthographic views, you
may add your name, instructor’s name, seat number, and class time to a sketch plane
and print an isometric view of the model from the Inventor window for a partial credit
of up to 15 points.
WI08
184
Directions: Using Autodesk Inventor Professional 2008, open the file

“N:ENG181_Final_Dim_Model_A.idw”. The drawing should look as follows. If
you have trouble locating or opening the file raise your hand. Add centerlines,
fully dimension the drawing using Inventor 2008 (use two place decimal inches),
complete the title block and print. Don’t leave your seat, your printout will be
returned to you. At the end of the exam, staple your printout to the front of this
page.
Don’t forget that the “Drawing Annotation Panel” can be accessed by left clicking
on the header for the “Drawing Views Panel”.
WI08
185
Directions: There are missing lines in the three orthographic views below. The
missing lines may be visible, hidden, or centerlines. First, draw the isometric
view in the space provided. Then draw the missing lines in the orthographic
views. Drawing the isometric view is mandatory!
T
ON
FR
WI08
186
Directions: Given the top and the right side views, draw the front view as an
offset section. Indicate the cutting plane on the top view. Note that the outline
of the front view has been given for you.
WI08
187
APPENDIX H: DATA PARSING MACRO
188
'
' MatchMakerMacro2
' Macro recorded by Yosef S. Allam
'
'
Sub MatchMakerMacro2()
'Declaration Of Variables
Dim ansbool As Integer '0 or 1 for answer selection
Dim ansvalue As Integer '1‐5 for value of each of 5 possible Likert responses per
'question
Dim quesnum As Integer 'Likert question number 1‐10
Dim row1 As Integer 'Current row number for Sheet1
Dim row2 As Integer 'Current row number for Sheet2
Dim column2 As Integer 'Current column number for Sheet2
Beep
ansbool = 6 'Variable initialization for error‐checking values

ansvalue = 7
quesnum = 8
row1 = 0
row2 = 0
column2 = 1
For row1 = 2 To 4500 'Approx max number of rows
Sheets(1).Select 'Raw Likert survey data select

Cells(row1, 1).Select 'Select current cell in student name column
If Selection.Value <> ("") Then 'Contains (name) text?
row2 = row2 + 1 'Increment record number (or row number) for Sheet2 and
Selection.Copy 'copy student name to Sheet2 in that row
Sheets(2).Select
Cells(row2, 1).Select
ActiveSheet.Paste
Else
Sheets(1).Select
Cells(row1, 3).Select
'DETERMINE IF THIS ROW IS A LIKERT QUESTION RESPONSE
If StrComp(Sheets(1).Cells(row1, 3).Value, Sheets(3).Cells(16, 1).Value) = 0 Then
Cells(row1, 10).Select 'Does this row contain positive (1) boolean indication
'for the Likert Scale item listed in this row?
ansbool = Sheets(1).Cells(row1, 10).Value
189
'DETERMINE WHICH LIKERT QUESTION NUMBER 1‐10
'DETERMINE IF NEVER, RARELY, OCCASIONALLY,
'REGULARLY, OR ALWAYS AND ASSIGN
'CORRESPONDING 1‐5 VALUE
If StrComp(Sheets(1).Cells(row1, 8).Value, Sheets(3).Cells(1, 1).Value) = 0 Then
quesnum = 1
If StrComp(Sheets(1).Cells(row1, 9).Value, Sheets(3).Cells(11, 1).Value) = 0 And ansbool = 1

Then
ansvalue = 1
ElseIf StrComp(Sheets(1).Cells(row1, 9).Value, Sheets(3).Cells(12, 1).Value) = 0 And ansbool =

1 Then
ansvalue = 2

1 Then
ansvalue = 3

1 Then
ansvalue = 4

1 Then
ansvalue = 5
End If
ElseIf StrComp(Sheets(1).Cells(row1, 8).Value, Sheets(3).Cells(2, 1).Value) = 0 Then
quesnum = 2

Then
ansvalue = 1

1 Then
ansvalue = 2

1 Then
190
ansvalue = 3

1 Then
ansvalue = 4

1 Then
ansvalue = 5
End If
quesnum = 3

Then
ansvalue = 1

1 Then
ansvalue = 2

1 Then
ansvalue = 3

1 Then
ansvalue = 4

1 Then
ansvalue = 5
End If
quesnum = 4

Then
ansvalue = 1
191
1 Then
ansvalue = 2

1 Then
ansvalue = 3

1 Then
ansvalue = 4

1 Then
ansvalue = 5
End If
quesnum = 5

Then
ansvalue = 1

1 Then
ansvalue = 2

1 Then
ansvalue = 3

1 Then
ansvalue = 4

1 Then
ansvalue = 5
End If
192
quesnum = 6

Then
ansvalue = 1

1 Then
ansvalue = 2

1 Then
ansvalue = 3

1 Then
ansvalue = 4

1 Then
ansvalue = 5
End If
quesnum = 7

Then
ansvalue = 1

1 Then
ansvalue = 2

1 Then
ansvalue = 3

1 Then
193
ansvalue = 4

1 Then
ansvalue = 5
End If
quesnum = 8

Then
ansvalue = 1

1 Then
ansvalue = 2

1 Then
ansvalue = 3

1 Then
ansvalue = 4

1 Then
ansvalue = 5
End If
quesnum = 9

Then
ansvalue = 1

1 Then
194
ansvalue = 2

1 Then
ansvalue = 3

1 Then
ansvalue = 4

1 Then
ansvalue = 5
End If
quesnum = 10

Then
ansvalue = 1

1 Then
ansvalue = 2

1 Then
ansvalue = 3

1 Then
ansvalue = 4

1 Then
ansvalue = 5
End If
End If
column2 = quesnum + 1 'Paste responses for Likert questions 1‐10 next to
195
Sheets(2).Select 'student name on same row in Sheet2 in corresponding
Cells(row2, column2).Select 'columns B‐K, with possible values of 1‐5
Selection.Value = ansvalue
End If
End If
Next row1
Beep
End Sub
196
APPENDIX I: SQL SCRIPT
197
TRANSFORM First(Sheet2.courseID) AS FirstOfcourseID
SELECT Sheet2.[student lastname# or username], First(Sheet2.courseID) AS [Total Of courseID]
FROM Sheet2
GROUP BY Sheet2.[student lastname# or username]
PIVOT Sheet2.[content item name];
TRANSFORM Last(Sheet2.[LateVisited by student]) AS [LastOfLateVisited by student]

SELECT Sheet2.[student lastname# or username], Last(Sheet2.[LateVisited by student]) AS [Total Of
LateVisited by student]
FROM Sheet2
TRANSFORM Sum(Sheet2.[number of visits]) AS [SumOfnumber of visits]

SELECT Sheet2.[student lastname# or username], Count(Sheet2.[number of visits]) AS [Total Of number of
visits]
FROM Sheet2
TRANSFORM Sum(Sheet2.[total time]) AS [SumOftotal time]

SELECT Sheet2.[student lastname# or username], Sum(Sheet2.[total time]) AS [Total Of total time]
FROM Sheet2
198

### - Enhancing Spatial Visualisation Skills in First Year Engineering Students - Important Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

### - Enhancing Spatial Visualisation Skills in First Year Engineering Students - Important Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ENHANCING SPATIAL VISUALIZATION SKILLS IN FIRST-YEAR

in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

One-of-a-Kind Doctor of Philosophy

The Ohio State University

Clark A. Mount-Campbell, Advisor

Spatial visualization skills are a function of genetics and life experiences. An

individual’s genetic spatial visualization aptitude can be enhanced through proper

series of technology-generated representations of figures from various perspectives that

development of spatial visualization skills. These quantitative experience levels were

significance in spatial visualization ability development. The relationship between

findings. Developmental experiences with home improvement activities significantly

predictor of course grades.

deployment of open access electronic instructional tools. Institutional web applications

grades, and enforcement of experimental design parameters and treatment group

Carmen, by Desire-to-Learn, employed in this study. Improvements in data accessibility

streamlined study implementation and data dissemination for educational research in

courses employing web applications. Improvements to course web applications can

allow educational researchers to effectively capitalize on this technology.

For my family, my mother Magda, my father Serry, and my sister Dina.

methods, as well her openness to allowing me to perform mathematics education course

Engineering Program as a laboratory for my research, as well as the many other

opportunities which allowed me to gain experience in an environment rich in engineering

educational research. His guidance in the realm of pedagogical theory as well as

of new developments and opportunities.

enriched my journey to this goal.

stages of this endeavor.

February 25, 1974………………………….. Born – Bayonne, New Jersey

1997………………………………………... B. S. Industrial and Systems Engineering

1997 – 1999………………………………... Graduate Teaching Associate

1999………………………………………... M. S. Industrial and Systems Engineering

2002………………………………………... Instructor and Curriculum Developer

2002 – 2008………………………………... Graduate Teaching Associate,

2008 – 2009……………………………….. NSF Graduate STEM Fellow in K-12

2009 – Present……………………………... Instructor

Allam, Y., & Irani, S. A. (1999). Systematic redesign of a manufacturing cell. In S. A.

Major Field: One-of-a-Kind Doctor of Philosophy

VITA ................................................................................................................................. vii

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiii

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xiv

CHAPTER 1: CONTEXT, RATIONALE, AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ....... 1

Problem Context ............................................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY, DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS .............. 41

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ....................................................... 70

Treatment of the Data .................................................................................................... 70

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... 117

Discussion and Conclusions ........................................................................................ 118

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 131

APPENDIX A: PURDUE SPATIAL VISUALIZATION TEST – ROTATIONS ........ 137

APPENDIX B: EXPERIENCE SCORE LIKERT-TYPE SURVEY QUESTIONS ...... 153

APPENDIX C: SURVEY AND FOCUS GROUP SOLICITATION ............................ 155

APPENDIX D: RELEVANT ENG 181 WINTER 2008 DRAWING ASSIGNMENTS159

APPENDIX F: CONSENT DOCUMENTATION ......................................................... 174

APPENDIX H: DATA PARSING MACRO .................................................................. 188

APPENDIX I: SQL SCRIPT .......................................................................................... 197

1.2: Piagetian cognitive and spatial development. ............................................................ 15

1.3: Important spatial visualization concerns and theoretical protocol............................. 20

3.1: Potential pattern of results given effective instructional tool. ................................... 67

4.1: Descriptive statistics for blocked sections, excluding grades. ................................... 73

4.25: Effects of PSVT—R pre-test scores on all grades. ................................................ 106

dynamically project mental representations of three-dimensional objects in different

Laeng, 1995; Sorby & Baartmans, 1996).

Specific to this application, spatial visualization skills are an important aspect of

problems. Spatial visualization ability is essential for engineers to perform adequately in

academia and industry. Visualization ability is often indicative of academic performance