Evaluating Spatial Thinking Ability Using Item Response Theory: Differential Item Functioning Across Math Learning Disabilities and Geometry Instructions

Abstract

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education initiatives have placed pressure on teachers to bring technology tools into classroom, including three-dimensional (3D) printing. Yet, little research has examined what specific math skills are required for 3D printing technology. This article describes a follow-up analysis of findings from a quasi-experimental study that tested feasibility of 3D geometry instruction, Anchored Instruction with Technology Applications (AITA), designed to help students visualize and construct 3D models based on Enhanced Anchored Instruction. Although we found that AITA improved math outcomes of students with math learning disabilities (MLD) in the previous analysis, we only used composite scores encompassing a variety of math and spatial tasks. In this study, we employed item response theory and differential item functioning to examine the impacts of MLD on students’ spatial thinking skills, understand the types of items to assess the intended skills in a valid way, and provide a detailed information of whether student ability and MLD status have caused different results to assess students’ spatial thinking skills. Results showed that students with MLD struggle to learn spatial thinking skills, and AITA was a significant positive indicator to improve spatial thinking skills for both students with and without MLD.

Keywords

three-dimensional printing differential item functioning Enhanced Anchored Instruction geometry instructions item response theory math learning disabilities spatial thinking problem solving

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psycho-logical Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.

Association of American Geographers. (2006). Spatial Thinking Ability Test [Measurement instrument].

Bennett

G. K.

Seashore

H. G.

Wesman

A. G.

(1947). Differential Aptitude Tests. Psychological Corporation.

Bottge

B. A.

(1999). Effects of contextualized math instruction on problem solving of average and below-average achieving students. The Journal of Special Education, 33(2), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699903300202

Bottge

B. A.

Gassaway

Toland

M. D.

Butler

Cho

(2014). Effects of blended instructional model on math performance. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914527240

Bottge

B. A.

Rueda

Grant

Stephens

A. C.

LaRoque

P. T.

(2010). Anchoring problem-solving and computation instruction in context-rich learning environments. Exceptional Children, 76(4), 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600403

Bottge

B. A.

Toland

M. D.

Gassaway

Butler

Choo

Griffen

A. K.

(2015). Impact of enhanced anchored instruction in inclusive math classrooms. Exceptional Children, 81(2), 158–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914551742

Buehler

Comrie

Hofmann

Mcdonald

Hurst

(2016). Investigating the implications of 3D printing in special education. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 8(3), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/2870640

Bulman

Fairlie

R. W.

(2016). Technology and education: Computers, software, and the Internet. In Hanushek

E. A.

Machin

Woessmann

(Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (Vol. 5, pp. 239–280). Elsevier.

10.

Butler

F. M.

Miller

S. P.

Crehan

Babbitt

Pierce

(2003). Fraction instruction for students with mathematics disabilities: Comparing two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(2), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00066

11.

Buzick

Stone

(2011). Recommendations for conducting differential item functioning (DIF) analyses for students with disabilities based on previous DIF studies. ETS Research Report Series, 2011(2), i–26.

12.

Choo

(2017). Developing technology applications for improving the problem-solving skills of middle school students with learning disabilities (Theses and Dissertations—Early Childhood, Special Education, and Rehabilitation Counseling, 38) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky]. https://doi.org/10.13023/ETD.2017.068

13.

Clauser

B. E.

Mazor

K. M.

(1998). Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 31–44.

14.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X019006002

15.

De Ayala

R. J

. (2013). Theory and practice of item response theory. Guilford Press.

16.

Elrod

R. E.

(2016). Classroom innovation through 3D printing. Library Hi Tech News, 33(3), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-12-2015-0085

17.

Embretson

S. E.

Reise

S. P.

(2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Lawrence Erlbaum.

18.

Ercikan

(2002). Disentangling sources of differential item functioning in multilanguage assessments. International Journal of Testing, 2(3–4), 199–215.

19.

Escueta

Quan

Nickow

A. J.

Oreopoulos

(2017). Education technology: An evidence-based review. National Bureau of Economic Research.

20.

Flat World Productions, LLC. (2007). Flatland: The movie [DVD].

21.

Johnson

Adams Becker

Estrada

Freeman

(2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 K-12 Edition. The New Media Consortium.

22.

Kentucky Department of Education. (2012). A guide to the Kentucky System of Interventions. https://education.ky.gov/educational/int/ksi/Documents/KSIRtIGuidanceDocument.pdf

23.

Lacey

(2010). Get students excited! 3D printing brings designs to life. Tech Directions, 70(2), 17–19.

24.

Lee

Bednarz

(2009). The effects of GIS learning on spatial thinking. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33(2), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260802276714

25.

Lee

Bednarz

(2012). Components of spatial thinking: Evidence from a spatial thinking ability test. Journal of Geography, 111(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2011.583262

26.

Linn

M. C.

Petersen

A. C.

(1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56(6), 1479–1498.

27.

Lipson

(2007, October). Printable 3D models for customized hands-on education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Mass Customization and Personalization (MCPC), Cambridge, MA.

28.

Lord

F. M.

Novick

M. R.

(1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Addison-Wesley.

29.

Maccini

Ruhl

K. L.

(2000). Effects of a graduated instructional sequence on the algebraic subtraction of integers by secondary students with learning disabilities. Treatment of Children, 23(4), 465–489.

30.

Molnar

(2017). Ed-Tech surges internationally and choices for schools become more confusing. EdWeek Market Brief. https://marketbrief.edweek.org/marketplace-k-12/ed-tech-surges-internationally-choices-schools-become-confusing

31.

Murray

(2013). Turning students into engineers with 3D printing. Tech Directions, 73(1), 12–14.

32.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.

33.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for mathematics.

34.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. U.S. Department of Education.

35.

Peters

Laeng

Latha

Jackson

Zaiyouna

Richardson

(1995). A redrawn Vandenberg & Kuse Mental Rotations Test: Different versions and factors that affect performance. Brain and Cognition, 28(1), 39–58.

36.

Pryor

(2014). Implementing a 3D printing service in an academic library. Journal of Library Administration, 54(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2014.893110

37.

Robitzsch

Kiefer

(2018). TAM: Test Analysis Modules (R package version 3.0-21). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/TAM/TAM.pdf

38.

Sarama

Clements

D. H.

Parmar

R. S.

Garrison

(2011). Geometry. In Fennell

(Ed.), Achieving fluency: Special education and mathematics (pp. 163–196). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

39.

Scheuermann

A. M.

Deshler

D. D.

Shumaker

J. B.

(2009). The effects of the explicit inquiry routine on the performance of students with learning disabilities on one-variable equations. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(2), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.2307/27740360

40.

Sheridan

K. M.

Clark

Williams

(2013). Designing games, designing roles: A study of youth agency in an urban informal education program. Urban Education, 48(3), 734–758.

41.

Sheridan

K. M.

Halverson

E. R.

Litts

B. K.

Brahms

Jacobs-Priebe

Owens

(2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505–531.

42.

University of Iowa. (2008). The Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Level 12 Complete Battery [Measurement instrument]. Riverside Publishing Company.

43.

Uttal

D. H.

Cohen

C. A.

(2012). Spatial thinking and STEM: When, why and how? In Ross

(Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 57, pp. 148–182). Academic Press.

44.

Uttal

D. H.

Meadow

N. G.

Tipton

Hand

L. L.

Alden

A. R.

Warren

Newcombe

N. S.

(2013). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 352–402.

45.

Vinu

P. V.

Sherimon

P. C.

Krishnan

(2011). Towards pervasive mobile learning—The vision of 21st century. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3067–3073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.247.

46.

Wai

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817–835.

47.

What Works Clearinghouse. (2017). Procedures and standards handbook version 4.0. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/wwc_procedures_handbook_v4.pdf

48.

Winter

M. J.

Lappan

Phillips

Fitzgerald

(1896). Spatial visualization. Addison-Wesley Publications.

49.

M. L.

Adams

R. J.

Wilson

M. R.

(1998). Conquest: Generalized item response modeling software. Australian Council for Educational Research.

50.

Zieky

(1993). Practical questions in the use of DIF statistics in test development. In Holland

P. W.

Wainer

(Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 337–347). Lawrence Erlbaum.

51.

Zumbo

B. D.

(1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Directorate of Human Research and Evaluation/Department of National Defense.