An innovative educational technology called interactive virtual and physical manipulatives (VPM) is developed to improve students’ spatial skills. With VPM technology, not only can students touch and play with real-world physical manipulatives in their hands but also they can see how the corresponding virtual manipulatives (i.e., computer graphics) simultaneously change in real time. The assessment results show that VPM technology resulted in a 21.3% normalized learning gain in the posttest as compared with the pretest. Gender difference in spatial scores was reduced from 22.9% in the pretest to only 5.5% in the posttest. The t-test results revealed a statistically significant effect (p = .032) of VPM technology on student learning, with Hedges’g effect size of 0.54. The majority of the students surveyed (71.9%) preferred using both VPM, rather than virtual or physical manipulatives alone, because the two types of manipulatives provide two simultaneous channels for learning.
Ardebili, M. (2006). Using solid modeling and multimedia software to improve spatial visualization skills. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society for Engineeering Educaiton (ASEE) Annual Conference & Exposition, Chicago, IL, USA.
2.
BassonI. (2002) Physics and mathematics as interrelated fields of thought development using acceleration as an example. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology33(5): 679–690.
3.
BlackA. A. (2005) Spatial ability and earth science conceptual understanding. Journal of Geoscience Education53(4): 402.
4.
Blasko, D. G., & Holliday-Darr, K. A. (2010). Longitudinal analysis of spatial skills training in engineering graphics. Proceedings of the 65th Midyear Meeting of the Engineering Design Graphics Division, Houghton, MI, USA.
5.
CaseyB. M.AndrewsN.SchindlerH.KershJ. E.SamperA.CopleyJ. (2008) The development of spatial skills through interventions involving block building activities. Cognition and Instruction26(3): 269–309.
6.
Chan, M. S., & Black, J. B. (2006). Direct-manipulation animation: Incorporating the haptic channel in the learning process to support middle school students in science learning and mental model acquisition. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences, Bloomington, IN, USA, 64–70.
7.
CohenJ. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8.
ColucciaE.LouseG. (2004) Gender difference in spatial orientation: A review. Journal of Environmental Psychology24(3): 329–340.
9.
Contero, M., Gomis, J. M., Naya, F., Albert, F., & Martin-Gutierrez, J. (2012). Development of an augmented reality based remedial course to improve the spatial ability of engineering students. Proceedings of the 2012 Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Seattle, WA, USA.
10.
Cracow, R. G., & Sorby, S. (2008). Testing instruments for the assessment of 3D spatial akills. Proceedings of the 2008 American Society for Engineeering Educaiton (ASEE) Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
11.
ErnstJ. V.ClarkA. C. (2009) Technology-based content through virtual and physical modeling: A national research study. Journal of Technology Education20(2): 23–36.
12.
Goodridge, W. H., Greenhalgh, S. D., Lawanto, O., & Stewardson, G. A. (2012). Measuring the differences in spatial ability between a face-to-face and a synchronous distance education undergraduate engineering graphics course. Proceedings of the 2012 American Society for Engineeering Educaiton (ASEE) Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, TX, USA.
13.
HaO.FangN. (2016) Spatial ability in learning engineering mechanics: Critical review. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice142(2): 04015014–1–04015014-11.
14.
Hagevik, R. A. (2003). The effects of online science instruction using geographic information systems to foster inquiry learning of teachers and middle school science students (Doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
15.
HakeR. R. (1998) Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics66(1): 64–74.
16.
HegartyM.WallerD. (2005) Individual differences in spatial abilities. In: ShahP.MiyakeA. (eds) The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 121–167.
17.
HeilM. (2008) Sex differences in mental rotation with polygons of different complexity: Do men utilize holistic processes whereas women prefer piecemeal ones?The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology61(5): 683–689.
18.
Holliday-DarrK.BlaskoD. G.DwyerC. (2000) Improving cognitive visualization with a web based interactive assessment and training program. Engineering Design Graphics Journal64(1): 4–9.
19.
HsiS.LinnM. C.BellJ. E. (1997) The role of spatial reasoning in engineering and the design of spatial instruction. Journal of Engineering Education86(2): 151–158.
20.
JohnsonE.MeadeA. C. (1987) Development patterns of spatial ability: An early sex difference. Child Development58(3): 725–740.
21.
LinC. H.ChenC. M.LouY. C. (2014) Developing spatial orientation and spatial memory with a treasure hunting game. Educational Technology & Society17(3): 79–92.
22.
LinnM. C.PetersenA. C. (1985) Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development56(6): 1479–1498.
23.
LohmanD. F. (1996) Spatial ability and G. In: DennisI.TapsfieldP. (eds) Human abilities: Their nature and assessment, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 97–116.
24.
LundA. M. (2001) Measuring usability with the USE Questionnaire. STC Usability SIG Newsletter8(2): 3–6.
25.
Maeda, Y., & Yoon, S. Y. (2011). Scaling the revised PSVT-R: Characteristics of the first year engineering students’ spatial ability. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference and Exposition, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2011–2582.
26.
MaedaY.YoonS. Y. (2013) A meta-analysis on gender differences in mental rotation ability measured by the purdue spatial visualization tests: Visualization of rotations (PSVT:R). Educational Psychology Review25(1): 69–94.
27.
MaedaY.YoonS. Y.Kim-KangK.ImbrieP. K. (2013) Psychometric properties of the revised PSVT:R for measuring the first year engineering students’ spatial ability. International Journal of Engineering Education29(3): 763–776.
28.
Martin-DortaN.SaorinJ. L.ConteroM. (2011) Web-based spatial training using handheld touch screen devices. Educational Technology & Society14(3): 163–177.
29.
MayerR. E. (2003) Elements of a science of e-learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research29(3): 297–313.
30.
MayerR. E.MorenoR. (2003) Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist38(1): 43–52.
31.
National Science Board (2010) Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital, Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
32.
NazarethA.HerreraA.PrudenS. M. (2013) Explaining sex difference in mental rotation: Role of spatial activity experience. Cognition Processes14: 201–204.
33.
NewcombeN. S. (2010) Picture this: Increasing math and science learning by improving spatial thinking. American Educator, summer. 2010, 29–43.
34.
PedrosaC. M.BarberoB. R.MiguelA. R. (2014) Spatial visualization learning in engineering: Traditional methods vs. a web-based tool. Educational Technology & Society17(2): 142–157.
35.
PillayH. (1998) Cognitive processes and strategies employed by children to learn spatial representations. Learning and Instruction8(1): 1–18.
36.
RafiA.SamsudinK. A.IsmailA. (2006) On improving spatial ability through computer-mediated engineering drawing instruction. Educational Technology & Society9(3): 149–159.
37.
SamsudinK.RafiA.HanifA. S. (2011) Training in mental rotation and spatial visualization and its impact on orthographic drawing performance. Educational Technology & Society14(1): 179–186.
38.
ShepardS.MetzlerD. (1988) Mental rotation: Effects of dimensionality of objects and type of task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance14(1): 3–11.
39.
ShermanJ. (1980) Mathematics, spatial visualization, and related factors: Change in girls and boys grades 8-11. Journal of Educational Psychology72(4): 476–482.
40.
SmithG. G.OlkunS. (2005) Why interactivitiy works: Interactivive priming of metal rotation. Journal of Educational Computing Research32(2): 93–111.
41.
SorbyS.CaseyB.VeurinkN.DulaneyA. (2013) The role of spatial training in improving spatial and calculus performance in engineering students. Learning and Individual Differences26: 20–29.
42.
SorbyS. A. (2006) Developing 3D spatial skills for K-12 students. Engineering Design Graphics Journal70(3): 1–11.
43.
SorbyS. A. (2009) Educational research in developing 3-D spatial skills for engineering students. International Journal of Science Education31(3): 459–480.
44.
UttalD. H.CohenC. A. (2012) Spatial thinking and STEM education: When, why, and how? In: RossB. H. (ed.) The psychology of learning and motivation, Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, pp. 147–181.
45.
UttalD. H.MeadowN. G.TiptonE.HandL. L.AldenA. R.WarrenC.NewcombeN. S. (2013) The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin139(2): 352–402.
46.
WaiJ.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2009) Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology101(4): 817–835.
47.
Yoon, S. Y. (2011). Revised Purdue Spatial Visualization Test: Visualization of rotations (Revised PSVT:R) [Psychometric instrument: West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University].
