Preliminary Analysis of Spatial Ability Improvement within an Engineering Mechanics Course: Statics

Spatial ability has been an area of research for decades. Distinct correlations have been discovered regarding research into spatial ability and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics disciplines (STEM). However, spatial ability is a term that can be confusing to practitioners. For this purpose, spatial ability, a measure of an individual’s capability to exercise a specific construct of spatial thinking, will be defined explicitly in this paper. Spatial ability has been positively correlated to success in the professional engineering world as well as within engineering coursework. In view of this correlational evidence, an argument forms for the academy to develop a more refined understanding of the improvement in spatial ability and underlying impacting mechanisms of spatial thinking within undergraduate engineering courses. This paper presents preliminary research into spatial ability’s correlation to performance in an engineering Statics course. Statics is a fertile engineering course to research as it is a gateway course where students often determine if they will persevere in engineering. It is the first class in the Engineering Mechanics Series and is required by most mechanical, civil, environmental, biological, and aerospace engineering programs. Results indicate that spatial ability does improve significantly in a Statics course for both sexes. Data was collected using two spatial instruments, the Mental Cutting Test and the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test: Visualization of Rotations, and a demographic survey. A preand post-test design was used for both tests where tests where given in the first week and in the final week of the course. A series of paired t-tests are used to statistically analyze for improvement and the potential correlation between the spatial preand post-tests demographic variables. Additionally, the study was replicated in an Anatomy class to address potential risks to the study. Results indicate that spatial ability of the students in the Anatomy class does not significantly improve. Further research is suggested in looking into the demographic factors of each study including previous and concurrent course experience. Introduction and Literature Review Numerous studies have reported significant correlation of spatial thinking (the ability to use spatial skills in their learning and work) to success in performance, professional work1, 2, and within academic studies1, 3. In addition to this, studies also show that spatial thinking is highly correlated to success in the engineering field specifically1. It has been recorded that entering engineering students have a significantly higher spatial ability than their colleagues in other fields of study1. Within the engineering field, those with higher spatial ability perform, on average, better than other students in the same field of engineering who have lower spatial ability1, 3. This better performance in their academic career then translates to their professional career1, 2. Terms such as spatial thinking, spatial cognition, and visuospatial thinking, in addition to spatial ability, are commonly used to discuss individuals’ spatial understanding of innately spatial topics. For this paper’s purposes, the term spatial ability will be used and defined as the measure of an individual’s spatial aptitude. In 1993, Sheryl A. Sorby conducted an experiment at Michigan Tech regarding spatial ability and engineering students. The experiment required all freshmen engineers to take a spatial ability test known as the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test: Visualization of Rotations (PSVT:R). That year, 535 students took the test and 96 (18%) failed the test with a 60% or lower. From this group of 96 participants, 24 were randomly selected to take part in a three credit course that was developed to help the improvement of spatial ability. The remaining 72 students were not enrolled to serve as the control group3. At the end of the course, the 24 students were given the PSVT:R again to assess gain. The average of the test for the 24 students before the class was 51.7%. After the class, their reported average had increased from 30.3% to 82.0%. Additionally, the data indicated that males performed higher, on average, than females on the spatial ability test. Of those that took the test, 17% were female. Yet, of those that failed the test, nearly half were female3. Even though males, on average, have higher initial spatial ability regarding rotations2, 4, Sorby’s work demonstrates that spatial ability can be learned. It also demonstrates that the disparity in scores seen by the two sexes can be decreased or eliminated with training1. The study continued for the next five years. A change in methods involved actively advising those who failed the pre-test to enroll into a spatial intervention course rather than continuing to randomly select participants for the spatial intervention as was done before. The students that were accepted and voluntarily took the spatial ability class demonstrated roughly the same percentage increase as did the randomly selected group the year prior. Continued data collection revealed an average student gain of 27% on their PSVT:R test results3. While some may extend this research to discover how much spatial ability improves in those who already have a higher level initially, the work conducted nevertheless shows that spatial ability is not innate and responds to training and experiences within the studied demographics. It has also been verified that spatial ability can be learned through coursework not directly targeting its improvement2, 5. In a study performed by Prieto and Velasco, it was desired to know if spatial ability could be improved through a course that focused on technical drawing. The study concluded that spatial ability does improve, and the improvement was similar in men and women2. A similar study done by Németh focused on the development of spatial ability throughout a course focused on descriptive geometry. In her results, she reported that, indeed, spatial ability was improved by the end of the course but that males showed greater improvement in spatial ability than females5. Both studies agreed that spatial ability can be improved during engineering-related coursework; however, the two studies do not agree if males and females improved similarly or not. Finally, Sorby’s text6, targeted to improve student’s spatial ability, presents a method of increasing this ability using very traditional drafting instructional techniques. Her work provides one practical avenue to students to increase their spatial ability. There has been much work done with respect to differences in spatial ability between sexes. Levine states that at as early as four years of age there is already a difference in spatial ability favoring males7. In a study done by Lippa, Collaer, and Peters, it was found that across 53 separate countries males performed higher than women on two separate spatial tests. Also, it was reported that gender equality and economic development were significantly associated with a higher performance on the two tests4. On December 10th 2012, 44 spatially minded researchers and administrators from education and industry met to discuss the placement of curriculum, based on spatial thinking, in higher education. They brought together their knowledge about the teaching and development of spatial thinking in order to find the most effective way to teach this skill to the next generation of engineers and to other students in visually intensive majors8. On teaching spatial ability they reported the following: Although we believe that current attempts to teach spatial thinking are effective, we have little objective evidence for this and are not currently in a position to advocate a best approach or set of approaches for teaching spatial thinking across the college curriculum.8 Even with this and other research, Sorby claims, “That it is still too early to determine if those with spatial abilities are simply attracted to engineering fields or whether engineering education and practice aid in the growth of spatial abilities1. ” Nevertheless, the argument is proposed that initial work is required to discover courses that are significantly spatial in nature9. Recently Uttal made this comment: Having good spatial skills strongly predicts achievement and attainment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields10, 11. Improving spatial skills is therefore of both theoretical and practical importance.12 In order to meet the demands of the world’s engineering needs in the coming years, we need to address the deficit in engineering graduates13. Spatial interventions stand to impact STEM education as evidenced in Uttal’s statement concerning the advantages for investigating spatial thinking, Considered together, the results suggest that spatially enriched education could pay substantial dividends in increasing participation in mathematics, science, and engineering.12 As supported by previous research, fostering the development of student’s spatial ability is one potential technique that may increase engineering student success. In accordance with the call for action made by Uttal12, spatially enhanced curriculum can and should be created and adopted into existing courses. However, we must first identify highly spatial topics and discover how students spatially reason through the concepts and problems taught within them to strategically tackle spatial enhancements that will have impacts. Research focused on such knowledge will set a foundation for instructors to develop spatially enhanced curriculum and will reveal if spatial ability can impact success at a course-specific level.