See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/250184576

The Effect of Instruction on Spatial Visualization Skills of Middle School Boys

and Girls

Article  in  American Educational Research Journal · March 1988

DOI: 10.3102/00028312025001051

CITATIONS READS

149 1,197

3 authors, including:

David Ben-Chaim Richard T Houang

Technion - Israel Institute of Technology Michigan State University
63 PUBLICATIONS   1,304 CITATIONS    114 PUBLICATIONS   2,423 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Teacher Education and Development — Mathematics View project

Mathematics Teachers for the 21st Century View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David Ben-Chaim on 13 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 American Educational Research Journal
Spring 1988, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 51-71

The Effect of Instruction on Spatial Visualization

Skills of Middle School Boys and Girls

David Ben-Chaim
University of Haifa
Glenda Lappan
Michigan State University
and
Richard T. Houang
Michigan State University

This study was conducted to investigate differences in spatial visualiza-

tion abilities and effects of instruction on spatial visualization skills of
fifth through eighth grade students by grade, sex, and site. About 1,000
students from three sites, representing a wide range of socioeconomic
status, participated in the study. The spatial visualization unit engaged
students in concrete activities, building and drawing solids made of
cubes. The instrument used was the MGMP Spatial Visualization Test,
with a test-re test reliability of .79, and Cronbach's reliability coefficients
for various groups of students ranged from .72 to .86 on the pretest and
from .82 to .88 on the posttest. Before instruction, there were significant
differences in spatial visualization performance by grade (increasing
with age), by sex (favoring boys), and by site (increasing with socio
economic status). After instruction, fifth through eighth grade students
profited considerably from instruction, and the gain was similar for boys
and girls despite initial sex differences. Retention of effects persisted
after a 4-week period and after 1 year.

Spatial visualization, a particular subset of spatial skills, is described

by McGee (1979) as "the ability to mentally manipulate, rotate, twist, or
invert a pictorially presented stimulus object" (p. 893). Whereas one
group of researchers emphasizes the mental manipulation needed in spa-
tial visualization tasks as its main critical aspect (Fennema, 1977; Guay,
1980), a second group emphasizes the need for complicated, multistep
analytic processing of spatially presented information (Linn & Petersen,

51

Downloaded from [Link] at TECHNION 34965 IND on December 13, 2015

Ben-Chaim, Lappan, and Houang
1985). Investigating spatial visualization is important because of corre-
lational and logical-intuitive support for its relationship to most technical-
scientific occupations and especially to the study of mathematics, science,
art, and engineering (see reviews by Clements, 1983; Linn & Petersen,
1986).
An additional indication that this aptitude is an important consideration
is the finding of sex-related differences in spatial visualization. A review
of the related literature reveals a typical, but not a universal, finding, that
male performance on spatial visualization is superior to female perform-
ance (Harris, 1981; Liben, 1981; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Sherman,
1980). Yet Harris notes that the "mean differences in any given positive
report (on sex differences in spatial visualization) are usually smaller than
the range of difference within a sex" (p. 90) or in the total sample. Several
researchers raise the issue that these differences may be caused by meth-
odological errors such as test bias induced by the type of items used. In
particular, Linn and Petersen (1985) conclude that "spatial visualization
tests with many items that could be efficiently solved using a mental
rotation strategy might yield small but consistent sex differences" (p.
1491). In addition, there are various theoretical explanations and hy-
potheses concerning the sex differences in spatial visualization (and spa-
tial ability). Some emphasize the contributions of biological factors—
"nature"; others emphasize the role of learning, practice, and social-
ization—"nurture" (Harris, 1981; Linn & Petersen, 1985). As a result,
questions have been raised regarding the interaction of sex and instruction
in affecting spatial ability (Eliot & Fralley, 1976; Harris; Maccoby &
Jacklin, 1974). Many researchers are interested in whether specific skills
involved in the manifestation of the spatial visualization ability of indi-
viduals improve with practice. Even if spatial visualization is an inborn
characteristic that is genetically determined, one can ask if and to what
extent it can be modified by the environment.
Spatial visualization is not one of the usual components of the school
curriculum. Therefore, spatial understanding is primarily informally ac-
quired. Nevertheless, several studies of training programs to increase
spatial visualization are reported in the literature. Among them, incon-
sistent results are found. Mendicino (1958), Myers (1958), and Sedgwick
(1961) report no significant differences on the Differential Aptitude (DAT)
Space Relations Test due to coursework in vocational machine shop,
descriptive geometry, mechanical drawing, engineering, or industrial su-
pervision. On the other hand, Brinkmann (1966) studied the changes in
spatial ability as shown on the DAT Spatial Relations Test. Subjects were
given a 3-week training program that stressed pattern folding and object
manipulation. He found that significant gains were exhibited by the ex-
perimental group and concluded that spatial visualization skill can be
improved by training. Wolfe (1970) devised a similar training program for
52

Downloaded from [Link] at TECHNION 34965 IND on December 13, 2015

 Effect of Instruction in Spatial Visualization
students in grades 7, 8, and 9. He also found significant gains on a pro-
gram-related test, but little gain on a transfer test.
On the elementary level, whereas the Smith and Schroeder (1979) study
of fourth graders had shown that boys and girls improve comparably in
spatial visualization ability as a result of instruction, the Smith and Litman
(1979) study "showed that among slightly older, early adolescent children,
only the boys significantly improved in this ability as a result of instruc-
tion" (p. 673). In another study, Connors, Serbin, & Schackman (1977)
investigated the effects of a training/practice procedure on performance
of boys and girls (mean age 6.5 years) on the children's Embedded Figures
Test. The results showed an improvement for girls, but not for boys. In
a 1978 study, the same researchers showed that both boys and girls with
training improved significantly more from pretest to posttest than did the
control group. On the preschool level, Cox (1978) trained 5-year-old chil-
dren in perspective-taking skills. Compared with a control group, the
perspectives-trained children transferred their learning to "near" transfer
tasks, and this effect was lasting.
These inconsistent results leave the field open for further research,
particularly research that attends to the criticism that Brinkmann's study
did not investigate the persistence of the training effect (Eliot & Fralley,
1976; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). In support, Bruner (1973) concludes "I
don't think we have begun to scratch the surface of training in visual-
ization" (p. 476). Mitchelmore (1975) says that "the greatest need is
for the development of practical geometric and spatial teaching programs
and for their experimental testing" (p. 172). And finally, Sherman (1979)
argues that "methods for achieving this [improving spatial skill] . . .
need to be devised, and their feasibility and advisability evaluated"
(pp. 26-27).
Purpose of the Study
This study attempts to address some of the concerns raised in the lit-
erature by administering a unit of instruction to students in grades 5
through 8 at three different sites with widely varying socioeconomic back-
ground. Differences in the performance of the students on a spatial vi-
sualization test before and after instruction and the retention of the in-
structional effect were explored.
Specifically, this study was designed to answer the following questions:
• Do sex and grade level differences exist, before instruction, in spatial
visualization ability?
• Will instruction in spatial visualization tasks affect the spatial vi-
sualization performance of students in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8?
• Will these effects be different for boys than for girls?
• Will these effects differ by grade level?

53

Downloaded from [Link] at TECHNION 34965 IND on December 13, 2015

Ben-Chaim, Lappan, and Houang
• Do these effects of instruction on spatial visualization skills persist
over time for each grade level and sex?

The Study
Subjects
The study was conducted in winter and spring 1982 at three sites in and
around a large midwestern city. To increase the possibility of generalizing
the results, the number of students in the sample was large, and the three
sites were selected to represent a wide range of socioeconomic status.
There were approximately 1,000 students and 21 teachers involved.
Site 1 is an inner-city school that has only fifth and sixth grade students
and two kindergarten classes. The district demographic data for 1980-81
shows 65% white, 23% black, and 10% Latino. Site 2 comprises a rural
middle school that serves a cross-section of middle-class families and is
predominantly white. Site 3 is a suburban middle school that serves a
community of upper middle-class university and state government profes-
sionals and is predominantly white.
For Site 1, with the exception of one fifth-sixth combination class, all
the fifth and sixth grade students were included in the sample. For Site
2, except for a small group of special education students and 4 of the 8
sixth grade classes, all the students were included in the sample. Of the
447 students included, 238 constituted the subsample for the retention
testing. For Site 3, all sixth grade students and 6 of the 11 seventh grade
classes were included in the sample. Nonparticipating classes were part
of a pilot study conducted in these schools in the previous year.
Since grade 6 was included at each site, comparative data on stan-
dardized testing provides additional information on site differences. On
the Stanford Achievement Test, the reading grade equivalents at grade
six are 6.57, 7.2, and 7.5 for Sites 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and the mathe-
matics grade equivalents are 6.8, 6.7, and 7.0 for Sites 1, 2, and 3,
respectively.

The Unit of Instruction

Two difficulties had to be overcome in order to carry out a study such
as this: the development of an appropriate unit of instruction on spatial
visualization for the middle grades and the selection of an appropriate
instrument to evaluate the effects of instruction. Such a unit was devel-
oped by the Middle Grades Mathematics Project (MGMP). 1
The 3-week MGMP Spatial Visualization Unit engages students in con-
crete activities with small cubes. Students build, draw representations in
two different ways, and evaluate "buildings" created from cubes. In the
first scheme each building is represented by three grid-paper pictures
(base, front view, and side view) that constitute a "set of plans." In the

54

Downloaded from [Link] at TECHNION 34965 IND on December 13, 2015

 Effect of Instruction in Spatial Visualization
second scheme, students are asked to perform some fairly demanding
visualization tasks. The scheme uses isometric dot paper to show corner
views of the building. All aspects of the representations and the concrete
buildings are considered. Some tasks start with creating the building and
then representing it. Others start with a set of plans or isometric drawings
and have the children create a building to fit. See Lappan, Phillips, and
Winter (1984) for illustrations of some of the activities. The MGMP Spatial
Visualization Unit utilizes an instructional model developed by Shroyer
and Fitzgerald (1979). The model consists of three phases: launching,
exploring, and summarizing.
The Spatial Visualization Test
The test used was the Middle Grades Mathematics Project (MGMP)
Spatial Visualization Test (SVT). Thirty-two multiple-choice items, each
with five options, comprise the test. The test is an untimed power test
with 10 different types of items. The types of representations used are
two-dimensional flat view, three-dimensional corner view, and "map
plan," which includes the description of the base of the building by
squares and numbers in each square to tell how many cubes are to be
placed on that square (for example, see the stimulus of Item 3 in Figure
1). Each type of representation is used in sample items included on the
introductory page of the exam. The test includes item types that deal with
finding either flat or corner views of "buildings," adding and removing
cubes, combining two solids, and applying the idea of "map plan." A
short description of each of the 10 item types follows.
Type L Given a three-dimensional corner view of a building, the task
is to find the two-dimensional front, right, back, or left view of the same
building (see Figure 1, Item 2).
Type II. Given the map plan of a building, the task is to find a specified
two-dimensional view of the same building (see Figure 1, Item 3).
Type III. Given a two-dimensional view of a building, the task is to find
the two-dimensional view of the opposite side of the same building (see
Figure 1, Item 8).
Type IV. Given a three-dimensional corner view of a rectangular solid
built from smaller cubes, the task is to find the number of cubes needed
to build the solid.
Type V. Given the base and the two-dimensional front and right views
of a building, the task is to find the map plan that can be completed to
fit the building or that fits the building with a maximum or minimum
number of cubes.
Type VI. Given a three-dimensional corner view of a building, the task
is to find the number of cubes that touch an exposed cube face to face.
Type VII. Given a three-dimensional corner view of a building, the task

55

Downloaded from [Link] at TECHNION 34965 IND on December 13, 2015

Ben-Chaim, Lappan, and Houang

2. You are given a picture of a building drawn from the FRONT-RIGHT corner.
Find the BACK VIEW.
A B C D E

&Bcffl&&M
3 . You a r e given the map p l a n o f a b u i l d i n g .

Find t h e RIGHT VIEW

A B C

%i m i
FRONT
d#
8. You are given the BACK VIEW of a building.
Find the FRON TJMEW.
/ B C 0 E

1r — 1 1 1— 1u1 1
,LIn — j—|
3 n
111
BACK V EW 11 1
29, Find another view of the first building.
A B C

Figure 1 . Four i l l u s t r a t e d items from the MGMP Spatial Visualization Test.

FIGURE 1. Four illustrated items from the MGMP Spatial Visualization
Test

56

Downloaded from [Link] at TECHNION 34965 IND on December 13, 2015

 Effect of Instruction in Spatial Visualization
is to find the three-dimensional corner view of the same building if one
or more indicated cubes are added or removed.
Type VIII. Given the map plan of a building, the task is to identify a
three-dimensional corner view of the same building.
Type IX. Given three-dimensional corner views of two different solids,
the task is to identify a three-dimensional corner view of a building made
from the two solids.
Type X. Given a three-dimensional corner view of a building, the task
is to find another corner view of the same building (see Figure 1, Item
29).
Only five item types (16 of the 32 items) were related to the training
tasks with different levels of similarity (Type III highly similar; Types I,
II, VII, and VIII very moderately similar). The other five item types were
quite different in character.
There are several categorization schemes for tests of this type. With
respect to Eliot's classification of figural spatial tests (Eliot, 1980), the
tasks posed by the different types of items belong to the manipulative
spatial tasks rather than to the matching tasks. In particular, they relate
to categories 6, 7, 9, 11, and 12 in Eliot's hierarchy. The test described
here falls within the domain of spatial visualization as described by McGee
(1979). With respect to Lohman's major spatial subfactors categorization
(Lohman & Kyllonen, 1983), the test falls mainly into the visualization
category. This is because it is untimed and has more complex items than
tests generally found in Lohman's spatial relations and orientation cate-
gories. For a more detailed description of the test, see Ben-Chaim, Lap-
pan, and Houang (1986).
The Cronbach's reliability coefficients for each group tested by sex and
by grade ranged from .72 to .86 on the pretest and from .82 to .88 on the
posttest. A sample of 73 students from Site 2, one class from each of
grades 6, 7, and 8, was given the test twice 3 weeks apart without any
intervention. The test-retest reliability coefficient was .79 for each grade
level. In comparing the performance of the 73 students on the two tests,
there was no evidence to suggest that the students had gained in per-
formance from practice on the test. Additional testing of 582 students in
grades 8 to 12 in two additional sites gave correlations of .61 and .66 with
scores of the Differential Aptitude Space Relations Test by Bennett, Sea-
shore, and Wesman (1972). This Differential Aptitude Test was also de-
signed to measure the spatial visualization dimension of spatial ability.
Procedure and Data Collection
All testing and instruction was done by the regular classroom teacher.
Before the study, the staff of MGMP conducted a 2-hour workshop in
each school for the teachers involved. All materials, including a detailed
57

Downloaded from [Link] at TECHNION 34965 IND on December 13, 2015

Ben-Chaim, Lappan, and Houang
teacher guide, were provided for the teacher, and the project staff of
MGMP was available to the teachers throughout the study.
The pre-, post-, and retention data were collected between January 20
and May 20,1982. The untimed test, usually not exceeding 25-30 minutes,
was administered during regular mathematics class periods. After the pre-
tests were given, the MGMP Spatial Visualization Unit was taught during
the regular mathematics period (40 to 50 minutes) daily for approximately
3 weeks. The posttest was given immediately after instruction and the
retention test was given 4 weeks later to a subsample of students from
Site 2.
Data Analysis and Results
Sites 1, 2, and 3 were analyzed separately. The unit of analysis for the
study was individual students. The statistical procedures used to analyze
the data were univariate analyses of variance and planned comparisons
on the pretest and on the gain scores. An alternative analysis using teach-
ers as the unit of analysis is given in thefinalreport of the MGMP (Lappan,
1983, pp. 15-28).
Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for all three sites by
grade, by sex, and by time (pretest, posttest). Within each site, on both
pretest and posttest, the means increase as the grade level increases, and
the boys' means are generally higher than the girls' means. Comparison
of the means for grade 6 for all three sites on both pretest and posttest
indicates site differences. The urban site is the lowest and the suburban
site the highest, as was the case with Stanford Achievement Test results
reported earlier.
Analysis of the pretest data was conducted in order to determine if the
grade, sex, and site differences in spatial visualization were statistically
significant. The summary of analyses of variance on the pretest scores
for Sites 1, 2, and 3 separately is reported in Table 2.
The grade level differences for Sites 1 and 3 were statistically significant
at the .07 and .01 levels, respectively. For Site 2, the planned comparisons
of grade 6 versus grades 7 and 8 and grade 7 versus grade 8 were statis-
tically significant at the .02 and .001 levels. Sex differences were statis-
tically significant at the .001 and .01 levels for Sites 2 and 3. The grade
by sex interaction was statistically significant only for Site 2 (p < .01).
This interaction is ordinal, with boys outperforming girls at each grade
level. The analysis on the site differences and further analyses of the
pretest data are reported by Ben-Chaim (1983). There was a statistically
significant difference at the .001 level in comparing students in Sites 1,
2, and 3.
The summary of analyses of variance on the gain scores (posttest minus
pretest) for Sites 1, 2, and 3 separately is reported in Table 3. For each
site, there was a significant overall gain on the MGMP Spatial Visual-
58

Downloaded from [Link] at TECHNION 34965 IND on December 13, 2015

 Effect of Instruction in Spatial Visualization
TABLE 1
Means and standard deviations of MGMP SVT* by site by time by grade by
sex
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
N Pretest5 Posttest N Pretest Posttest N Pretest Posttest
5th grade 102 7.39 12.22
(4.89) (6.48)
Boys 54 7.35 12.74
(4.73) (7.05)
Girls 48 7.44 11.63
(4.19) (5.29)
6th grade 95 8.63 15.62 108 11.04 16.96 264 12.28 18.21
(5.26) (6.45) (5.40) (6.59) (5.99) (6.79)
Boys 46 9.22 15.70 54 12.48 18.83 145 13.00 18.77
(5.60) (6.57) (5.89) (6.57) (6.52) (6.97)
Girls 49 8.08 15.55 54 9.59 15.09 119 11.34 17.53
(4.91) (6.40) (4.45) (6.11) (5.06) (6.54)
7th grade 159 11.34 20.18 70 14.30 20.30
(5.19) (5.65) (5.79) (6.27)
Boys 84 11.87 21.19 39 15.08 20.85
(5.59) (5.58) (6.03) (6.50)
Girls 75 10.75 19.05 31 13.32 19.61
(4.66) (5.55) (5.42) (6.00)
8th grade 180 13.23 20.56
(6.00) (6.53)
Boys 79 15.80 23.06
(6.36) (5.37)
Girls 101 11.22 18.60
(4.86) (6.72)
a
MGMP SVT—-Middle Grades Mathematics Project Spatial Visualization Test
(Range 0-32).
b
Means for pretests and posttests are followed by standard deviations in
parentheses.

ization Test (SVT). There were significant grade-level differences but no

significant sex differences or grade by sex interaction in gains. In Site 1,
grade 6 gained significantly more than grade 5, whereas in Site 3, there
were no significant differences in gains between grades 6 and 7. For Site
2, there was a significant difference in gains by grade level, with grade 7
showing the greatest gain.
Further analysis of the pretest and posttest data by item types for Sites
1,2, and 3 separately is presented in Table 4. The means reported in the

59

Downloaded from [Link] at TECHNION 34965 IND on December 13, 2015

OS bo
O
i

a-
I"
>§
TABLE 2 |
Summary of analysis of variance on pretest scores for sites 1, 2, and 3 a
a
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 g.
_ _ ^
Source of variation df F df F df F g
a
Grade 1 3.19 2 1 6.73** (6 vs. 7) <S
(5 vs. 6) (1) 5.37* (6 vs. 7, 8)
(1) 10.05*** (7 vs. 8)
r**
Sex 1 .53 1 33.42*** 1 6.77
Grade by sex 1 .77 2 4.38* 1 .01
Within 193 441 330
Mean square within 23.71 28.57 34.55

* p < .05.
** p < .01.
***/? < .001.

Downloaded from [Link] at TECHNION 34965 IND on December 13, 2015

TABLE 3
Summary of analysis of variance on gain scores^ for sites 1, 2, and 3
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
Source of variation df F df F df F
Grand mean 1 303.49** 1 1160.32** 1 554.93**
Grade 1 10.32* (5 vs. 6) 2 1 .01 (6 vs. 7)
(1) 17.18** (6 vs. 7, 8)
(1) 8.40** (7 vs. 8)
Sex 1 .04 1 1.38 1 .77
Grade by sex 1 2.64 2 .71 1 .01
Within 193 441 330
Mean square within 22.35 21.85 21.43
a
The gain score is constructed by subtracting the individual pretest score on the spatial visualization test from the
posttest score.
*p < .01.
**p < .001.

Downloaded from [Link] at TECHNION 34965 IND on December 13, 2015

Ben-Chaim, Lappan, and Houang
TABLE 4
Proportions* of correct responses for each item type by site by time
Site 1 (N = 197) Site 2 (N =: 447) Site 3 (N --= 334)
Item type Pretest M Posttest M Pretest M Posttest M Pretest M Posttest M
I .28 .45 .37 .59 .44 .59
II .10 .44 .23 .70 .26 .65
III .40 .72 .47 .84 .57 .84
IV .29 .38 .49 .62 .51 .62
V .16 .33 .25 .51 .26 .49
VI .31 .46 .52 .69 .54 .66
VII .40 .62 .62 .79 .60 .77
VIII .21 .34 .33 .51 .32 .46
IX .11 .28 .21 .47 .23 .40
X .22 .35 .33 .52 .34 .47
Proportion M = total of correct responses for items in an item type/total number
of items in the item type.

table are based on proportion (i.e., total of the correct responses for items
in an item type/total number of items in the item type). For each site,
there was a considerable improvement across the item types with rela-
tively higher gains for item Types II, III, V, IX, VII, and I. A breakdown
analysis of proportions in each site by grade and by sex showed a similar
pattern of results.
Table 5 provides the posttest and retention-test means and standard
deviations, by grade and by sex, on the MGMP SVT for a subsample of
238 students in grades 6, 7, and 8 from Site 2. Those classes of students
were randomly selected from the original sample and, as one can see,
their posttest means are slightly different from the comparable means of
the entire sample from Site 2. An inspection of the means reveals that
the students actually improved between the posttest and the retention test
4 weeks later. Figures 2 and 3 present the profiles of the means for the
MGMP SVT pretest, posttest, and retention-test scores by grade and by
sex for Site 2.
Although it was not a planned part of the study, data collection for
analysis of a different MGMP unit (Friedlander, 1984) allows results of
retention over a period of 1 year to be reported. A subtest of 15 of the
32 items on the MGMP SVT was given to 98 students from Site 2 a year
after they participated in the present study. The correlation between the
subtest and the whole test was .92. Table 6 shows the means and standard
deviations for these 98 students on the 15-item subtest both at the time
of the posttest, winter 1982, and the long-term retention, winter 1983.
There was almost no loss over the year in spatial visualization skills.
62

Downloaded from [Link] at TECHNION 34965 IND on December 13, 2015

 Effect of Instruction in Spatial Visualization
TABLE 5
Post- and retention test means and standard deviations ofMGMP SVT*
scores for the retention subsample from site 2 by grade by sex
Posttest Retention
N M SD M SD
6th grade 52 17.11 6.18 18.65 6.09
Boys 26 18.54 6.08 19.50 6.09
Girls 26 15.70 6.07 17.81 6.09
7th grade 79 20.06 6.41 20.71 5.55
Boys 41 20.93 6.38 21.46 5.37
Girls 38 19.13 6.40 19.89 7.70
8th grade 107 21.23 6.53 22.36 6.50
Boys 45 24.40 5.33 25.02 5.51
Girls 62 18.94 6.40 20.42 6.48
a
MGMP SVT—Middle Grade Mathematics Project Spatial Visualization Test
(Range 0-32).

Discussion
The findings of this study before the instructional intervention suggest
that among middle school students, grades 5 through 8, there is a trend
toward an increase in spatial visualization skills with an increase in grade
level. This observation might be expected because of the increased ma-
turity of the students; it is consistent with common findings of significant
grade effects for the cognitive variables. Several studies (e.g., Fennema

TABLE 6
Post- and long-term retention test means and standard deviations ofMGMP
SVT* scores for the subsample from site 2 by grade by sex
Posttest Retention
(winter 1982) (winter 1983)
winter 1982 N M SD M SD
6th grade 29 8.52 2.93 8.52 3.38
Boys 15 9.47 2.33 9.07 3.43
Girls 14 7.50 3.25 7.93 3.34
7th grade 69 10.17 2.95 9.53 3.13
Boys 43 10.71 2.89 10.30 3.09
Girls 26 9.33 2.90 8.27 2.82
a
MGMP SVT—Middle Grade Mathematics Project Spatial Visualization Test
Subtest (Range 0-15).

63

Downloaded from [Link] at TECHNION 34965 IND on December 13, 2015

Ben-Chaim, Lappan, and Houang

27

25
C0
LU
DC 23 =107)
O
o 21
ca
z
< 19
LU
2
£
CO
17

a. 15
2
o
5 13

11h

9U
-L
PRE POST RETENTION
FIGURE 2. Pre-post-retention test means on the MGMP Spatial Visual-
ization Test (SVT) by grade for Site 2

& Sherman, 1977, 1978; Guay & McDaniel, 1977) report similar results
with respect to significant grade effects on spatial visualization
performance.
One of the results of this study is that before the instructional inter-
vention there are sex differences in spatial visualization among middle
school students. In general, boys seem to outperform girls with respect
to spatial visualization ability. This finding is in agreement with the con-
clusion of the comprehensive review by Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) in-
dicating that "male superiority on visual-spatial tasks is fairly consistently
found in adolescence and adulthood" (p. 351). The results of the Women
in Mathematics study reported by Armstrong (1980) and the Fennema-
Sherman study (1977, 1978), however, are apparently in conflict with the
results of this study. Both studies conclude that there are no sex-related
differences in spatial visualization among middle school students. The

64

Downloaded from [Link] at TECHNION 34965 IND on December 13, 2015

 Effect of Instruction in Spatial Visualization

27

25
(/>
LU
(C
23
O
o 21
z
< 19
LU

s 17

Q. 15
O
13k
s
11 h

9h
JL X J-
PRE POST RETENTION
FIGURE 3. Pre-post-retention test means on the MGMP Spatial Visual-
ization Test (SVT) by sex for Site 2

discrepancy between these studies and the present study may depend on
a number of factors, one of which is instrumentation. In this study the
items included in the test are of different types and not all one type, as
is the case with the instruments used in the above two studies (the Revised
Minnesota Paper Form Board and the DAT Spatial Relations test). The
tests with one type of item might measure only a specific aspect of spatial
visualization ability, whereas the test in the present study might measure
different aspects of this ability.
In addition, it should be emphasized that, although the differences in
means for the boys and girls are statistically significant, there is a large
overlap in the performance of the two subsamples with many girls per-
forming well and many boys performing poorly on the MGMP Spatial
Visualization Test. Nevertheless, investigation of the distribution of
scores showed that the boy: girl ratio is greatest at the upper end of the

65

Downloaded from [Link] at TECHNION 34965 IND on December 13, 2015

Ben-Chaim, Lappan, and Houang
distribution (about 4:1), which is reminiscent of the Benbow and Stanley
data on mathematical ability in mathematically talented children (Benbow
& Stanley, 1980, 1983).
Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) concluded also that sex differences in spa-
tial ability become evident only during early adolescence. If the fifth grade
students are assumed to be preadolescents, the data from Site 1 seem to
support Maccoby and Jacklin's notion on the timing of the appearance
of sex differences in spatial visualization. The fifth grade pretest data
from Site 1 show almost no difference between boys and girls in spatial
visualization performance (7.35 vs. 7.44, respectively).
The results of the comparison of sixth grade data among sites (school
areas) suggest a relationship between the kind of community in which the
students live and their spatial visualization performance. This issue of
relevance of school area to spatial visualization skills should be further
investigated to uncover possible sources and determinants of differences
in spatial visualization performance.
The most important result of this investigation was that after the in-
struction intervention, middle school students, regardless of sex, gained
significantly from the training program in spatial visualization tasks. The
students made across-the-board gains in posttest item types, including the
difficult ones. It should be stressed that items in the test were not practiced
during the training sessions. Indeed, the training sessions emphasized
tactile manipulation of materials, whereas the test itself emphasized men-
tal manipulation. In addition, the act of taking the MGMG Spatial Vi-
sualization Test without the training intervention did not enhance a sub-
sequent score on this instrument. Even though five item types were similar
to the training tasks in different levels, they still required mental manip-
ulation and multistep analytic processing of the spatially presented in-
formation. These five item types on the posttest can be considered as a
measure of "near" transfer (as defined by Mayer, 1974). However, the
other five item types may represent a measure of "lateral" transfer, that
is, there is a potential for transfer in either direction (Winkles, 1986).
Obviously, the students transferred their learning to both "near" and
"lateral" transfer tasks, as were measured by the MGMP SVT instru-
ment. Nevertheless, an extensive test battery might have revealed
whether the training led to the acquisition of more general skills than
those tested in this study.
In the literature, several studies aimed at evaluating training programs
to increase spatial abilities in general and spatial visualization in partic-
ular. The result from the present study is in conflict with Sedgwick's (1961)
conclusion that spatial visualization is probably an innate capability not
modifiable by a specific instruction. The conflict in the results between
the two studies may depend on several factors such as the age of the
subjects (Sedgwick's study used older subjects than did the present
66

Downloaded from [Link] at TECHNION 34965 IND on December 13, 2015

 Effect of Instruction in Spatial Visualization
study), the instructional material (he used descriptive geometry), or in-
strumentation (he used the DAT-Space Relations Test). All the above
factors should be manipulated in future research to determine their roles.
The significant gain from instruction reported in this study is in agree-
ment with Brinkmann's (1966) conclusion that the functional skills of in-
dividuals in spatial visualization can be improved when appropriate train-
ing is provided. Although Brinkmann used programmed instruction
emphasizing geometry, several features of his study and this study were
similar: The subjects in his study were eighth graders; he stressed concrete
object manipulation, an emphasis similar to that of the instruction unit
used in the present study; and the period of time and setting of the training
were similar. All the above factors may have contributed to the agreement
in the results.
Another important result regarding the effects of the instruction was
that boy and girl students did not respond differently to the training pro-
gram. This outcome occurred in spite of the sex differences in favor of
males prior to the instruction. Consequently, the present result does not
support the hypothesis that the sex difference is an underlying "ability"
that cannot be influenced by intervention. It should be stressed at this
point that the instruction in spatial visualization tasks did not intend a
priori to eliminate the sex differences in spatial visualization skills. No
remediation for girls was planned or occurred. Obviously, the sex dif-
ferences in spatial visualization skills were still present after the instruc-
tion. However, the magnitude of the gain in test scores resulting from the
training program dwarfs the relatively small sex differences observed in
this study (for example, see Figures 2 and 3).
The persistence over time of the effects of the instruction on the spatial
visualization skills was strongly demonstrated. Regardless of grade or sex,
there was a gain in the retention means 4 weeks later and nearly equal
performance a year later. This suggests that spatial visualization ability
is a trait that, once acquired, can be further developed. In addition, the
massive increases in spatial visualization ability may lead, as a result of
the treatment and the persistence of training, to a hypothesis that such
abilities are highly responsive to education, supporting a strong compo-
nent for subject-matter-specific information in the performance of the
task. Through this treatment, the students gain information about a sub-
ject-matter-specific component of spatial visualization that is simply not
available to them in instruction in other domains. Thus, students develop
specific strategies for solving this spatial visualization task. Similar hy-
potheses can be made for instruction in geometry and algebra which cast
considerable doubt on the validity of measures of spatial visualization as
aspects of general competency.
If the assumption that spatial visualization ability is important for suc-
cess in mathematics and sciences is accepted, and if attempts are to be

67

Downloaded from [Link] at TECHNION 34965 IND on December 13, 2015

Ben-Chaim, Lappan, and Houang
made to improve middle school students' abilities in this area, then the
timing of instruction appears to be crucial. Although students at all grade
levels participating in this study gained significantly from the instruction,
the seventh grade boys and girls gained more than the others. This suggests
that seventh grade is an optimal time for the teaching of spatial visual-
ization tasks. Additional support for this suggestion is found in the results
in Site 2, before instruction, that show an increasing gap between boys
and girls from grade 7 to grade 8.
Summary
This investigation adds another piece of evidence to support the hy-
pothesis that sex differences in spatial visualization abilities do exist.
These differences favor males and appear as early as adolescence; how-
ever, the effect of instruction to increase spatial visualization skills pro-
vides evidence to support the notion that these skills are teachable and
can be learned. The specific skills involved in the manifestation of the
spatial visualization ability improve with practice. Given the opportunity
to develop spatial visualization skills, both sexes have equal potential for
acquiring significant gain from the training. When these spatial visual-
ization skills have been attained, they last and even continue to develop
over time.
Note
1
The Middle Grades Mathematics Project (MGMP) is a curriculum develop-
ment project funded by the National Science Foundation-Development in Science
Education, Grant #SED80-18025. The staff of the project: Glenda Lappan, Di-
rector; William M. Fitzgerald; Elizabeth Phillips; Mary Jean Winter; David Ben-
Chaim; Alex Friedlander; Zaccheaus Oguntebi; and Pat Yarbrough.
References
Armstrong, J. M. (March 1980). Women in mathematics. Achievement and par-
ticipation of women in mathematics: An overview. Denver: Education Com-
mission of the States.
Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability:
Fact or artifact? Science, 210, 1261-1264.
Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1983). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning
ability: More facts. Science, 222, 1029-1031.
Ben-Chaim, D. (1983). Spatial visualization: Sex differences, grade level differ-
ences, and the effect of instruction on the performance of middle school boys
and girls. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1982). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 43, 2914A.
Ben-Chaim, D., Lappan, G., & Houang, R. T. (1986). Development and analysis
of a spatial visualization test for middle school boys and girls. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 63, 659-669.
Bennett, G. K., Seashore, H. G., & Wesman, A. G. (1972). Form T, Differential
Aptitude Tests, Space Relations. New York: Psychological Corporation.

68

Downloaded from [Link] at TECHNION 34965 IND on December 13, 2015

 Effect of Instruction in Spatial Visualization

Brinkmann, E. H. (1966). Programmed instruction as a technique for improving

spatial visualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 179-184.
Bruner, J. S. (1973). Beyond the information given. London: Allen and Unwin.
Clements, M. A. (1983). The question of how spatial ability is defined, and its
relevance to mathematics education. Zentralblatt fiir Didaktik der Mathematik,
15, 8-20.
Connors, J. M., Serbin, L. A., & Schackman, M. (1977). Sex differences in chil-
dren's response to training on a visual spatial test. Developmental Psychology,
75(3), 293-294.
Connors, J. M., Schackman, M., & Serbin, L. A. (1978). Sex-related differences
in response to practice on a visual-spatial test and generalization to a related
test. Child Development, 49, 24-29.
Cox, M. V. (1978). Perspective ability: A training program. Journal of Educational
Research, 77(3), 127-133.
Eliot, J. (1980). Classification of figural spatial tests. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
51, 847-851.
Eliot, J., & Fralley, J. S. (1976). Sex differences in spatial ability. Young Chil-
dren, 31, 487-498.
Fennema, E. (1977). Influences of selected cognitive, affective and educational
variables on sex-related differences in mathematics learning and studying. In
L. H. Fox, E. Fennema, & J. Sherman (Eds.), Women and mathematics: Re-
search perspectives for change (pp. 79-135). Washington, DC: National In-
stitute of Education.
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1977). Sex-related differences in mathematics
achievement, spatial visualization and affective factors. American Educational
Research Journal, 14, 51-71.
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1978). Sex-related differences in mathematics
achievement and related factors: A further study. Journal for Research in Math-
ematics Education, 9, 189-203.
Friedlander, A. (1984). Achievement in similarity tasks: Effect of instruction, and
relationship with achievement in spatial visualization at the middle grades level.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Guay, R. B. (1980, April). Spatial ability measurement: A critique and an alter-
native. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Boston.
Guay, R. B., & McDaniel, E. D. (1977). The relationship between mathematics
achievement and spatial abilities among elementary school children. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 8, 211-215.
Harris, L. J. (1981). Sex-related variations in spatial skill. In L. S. Liben, A. H.
Patterson, & N. Newcombe (Eds.), Spatial representation and behavior across
the life span: Theory and application(pp. 83-125). New York: Academic Press.
Lappan, G. (1983). Middle Grades Mathematics Project. Final report of contract
N S F - S E D 80-18025 to the National Science Foundation.
Lappan, G., Phillips, E. D., & Winter, M. J. (1984, November). Spatial visual-
ization. Mathematics Teacher, 77, 618-623.
Liben, L. S. (1981). Spatial visualization and behavior: Multiple perspective. In
L. S. Liben, A. H. Patterson, & N. Newcombe (Eds.), Spatial representation

69

Downloaded from [Link] at TECHNION 34965 IND on December 13, 2015

Ben-Chaim, Lappan, and Houang
and behavior across the life span: Theory and application (pp. 3-36). New
York: Academic Press.
Linn, M. C , & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex
differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479—
1498.
Linn, M. C , & Petersen, A. C. (1986). Gender differences in spatial ability: Im-
plications for mathematics and science performance. In J. Hyde & M. C. Linn
(Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 67-
101). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lohman, D. F., & Kyllonen, P. C. (1983). Individual differences in solution strat-
egy on spatial tasks. In R. F. Dillon & R. R. Schmeck (Eds.), Individual dif-
ferences in cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 105-135). New York: Academic Press.
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (1974). Acquisition processes and resilience under varying testing
conditions for structurally different problem-solving procedures. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 66, 644-654.
McGee, M. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environ-
mental, genetic, hormonal and neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin,
5, 889-918.
Mendicino, L. (1958). Mechanical reasoning and space perception: Native ca-
pacity of experience. Personality Guidance Journal, 36, 335-338.
Mitchelmore, M. C. (1975). The perceptual development of Jamaican students,
with special reference to visualization and drawing of three-dimensional geo-
metrical figures and the effects of spatial training. (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio
State University, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 7310A.
Myers, C. T. (1958, March). The effects of training in mechanical drawing on
spatial relations test scores as predictors of engineering drawing grades. ETS
Research Bulletin, 58-4. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Sedgwick, L. K. (1961). The effect on spatial perception of instruction in de-
scriptive geometry. Unpublished master's thesis, Southern Illinois University.
Sherman, J. A. (1979). Women and mathematics: Summary of research from
1977-1979. NIE Grant. Unpublished manuscript.
Sherman, J. A. (1980). Mathematics, spatial visualization, and related factors:
Changes in girls and boys, grades 8-11. Journal of Educational Psychology,
72, 476-482.
Shroyer, J., & Fitzgerald, W. (1979, February). The mouse and the elephant.
Oregon Mathematics Teacher, 10-13.
Smith, W. S., & Litman, C. I. (1979). Early adolescent girls' and boys' learning
of spatial visualization skill. Science Education, 63, 671-676.
Smith, W. S., & Schroeder, C. K. (1979). Instruction of fourth grade girls and
boys on spatial visualization. Science Education, 63, 61-66.
Winkles, J. (1986). Achievement, understanding and transfer in a learning hier-
archy. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 275-288.
Wolfe, L. R. (1970). The effects of space visualization training on spatial ability
and arithmetic achievement of junior high school students. (Doctoral disser-
tation, State University of New York at Albany, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 31, 2801 A.

70

Downloaded from [Link] at TECHNION 34965 IND on December 13, 2015

 Effect of Instruction in Spatial Visualization
Authors
DAVID BEN-CHAIM, Assistant Professor, Oranim School of Education, Uni-
versity of Haifa, Israel. Specializations: spatial visualization—measurement,
sex differences, and training; teacher education—preservice and in-service
training of mathematics teachers for elementary and high school.
GLENDA LAPP AN, Professor, Department of Mathematics, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI 48824. Specializations: mathematics education,
research on teacher education, curriculum development and research at the
middle school level.
RICHARD T. HOUANG, Senior Statistical Analyst, Computer Laboratory, 403
Computer Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824. Spe-
cializations: educational statistics, research methods, psychometrics.

71

Downloaded from [Link] at TECHNION 34965 IND on December 13, 2015

View publication stats