Advertisement

Quality & Quantity

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 1015–1024 | Cite as

Does spatial visualization ability improve after studying technical drawing?

  • Gerardo Prieto
  • Angela D. Velasco
Research Note

Abstract

Two studies were carried out to analyze whether learning technical drawing improves a person’s ability for spatial visualization. Visualization and inductive reasoning tests were applied at the beginning and end of a course in technical drawing in samples of first year engineering students. In both studies it was observed that a moderate percentage of students improved their Visualization test execution. The improvement was similar in men and women. There was no improvement on the inductive reasoning test. The results support the conclusion that the spatial visualization ability can be improved with training.

Keywords

Spatial ability Spatial visualization Inductive reasoning Technical drawing Training Rasch model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackerman P.L., Kanfer R., Goff M.: Cognitive and noncognitive determinants of complex skill acquisition. J. Exp. Psychol. 1, 270–304 (1995)Google Scholar
  2. Baenninger M., Newcombe N.: The role of experience in spatial test performance: a meta-analysis. Sex Roles 20, 327–343 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennet G., Seashore H., Wesman A.: Differential Aptitude Test. Psychological Corp, New York (1947)Google Scholar
  4. Brody N.: Intelligence. Academic, San Diego, CA (1992)Google Scholar
  5. Carroll J.: Human Cognitive Ability: A Survey of Factor-Analytical Studies. Cambridge University Press, New York (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Embretson S.E.: Improving the measurement of spatial aptitude by dynamic testing. Intelligence 11, 333–358 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Halpern D.F.: Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ (2000)Google Scholar
  8. Linacre J.M.: A User’s Guide to WINSTEPS & MINISTEPS: Rasch Model Computers Programs. Winsteps.com., Chicago, IL (2006)Google Scholar
  9. Lohman D.F.: Spatial abilities as traits, processes, and knowledge. In: Sternberg, R.J. (eds) Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence, pp. 181–248. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ (1988)Google Scholar
  10. Marshalek B., Lohman D.F., Snow R.E.: The complexity continuum in the radex and hierarchical models of intelligence. Intelligence 7, 107–127 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McGee M.G.: Human spatial abilities: psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychol. Bull. 86, 889–918 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Michael W.B., Guilford J.P., Fruchter B., Zimmerman W.S.: The description of spatial-visualization abilities. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 17, 185–199 (1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Newcombe N.S., Mathason L., Terlecki M.: Maximization of spatial competence: more important than finding the cause of sex differences. In: McGillicudy-De Lisi, A., De Lisi, R. (eds) Biology, Society, and Behavior: The Development of Sex Differences in Cognition, pp. 183–206. Ablex, Wesport, CT (2002)Google Scholar
  14. Prieto G., Velasco A.D.: Construção de um teste de visualização a partir da psicologia cognitiva. Avaliaç 1, 39–47 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. Primi R.: Complexity of geometric inductive reasoning tasks. Contribution to the understanding of fluid intelligence. Intelligence 30, 41–70 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schumacker R.E.: Rasch measurement: the dichotomous model. In: Smith, E.V., Smith, R.M. Introduction to Rasch Measurement, pp. 226–253. JAM, Maple Grove, Mn (2004)Google Scholar
  17. Vasta R., Gaze C.E.: Can spatial trainig erase the gender differences on the water-level task?. Psychol. Women 20, 549–567 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Voyer D., Voyer S., Bryden P.: Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: a meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychol. Bull. 117, 250–270 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wilson M.: Constructing Measures: An Item Response Modeling Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahvah, NJ (2005)Google Scholar
  20. Peterson A., Wittig M.: Sex-Related Differences in Cognitive Functioning: Developmental Issues. Academic, New York (1979)Google Scholar
  21. Wolfe E.W., Chiu C.W.T.: Measuring pretest–posttest change with a Rasch rating scale model. J. Outcome Meas. 3, 134–161 (1999)Google Scholar
  22. Wright B.D.: Comparisons require stability. Rasch Meas. Trans. 10, 506 (1996)Google Scholar
  23. Wright B.D.: Time 1 to Time 2 comparison. Rasch Meas. Trans. 10, 478–479 (1996)Google Scholar
  24. Wright B.D., Masters G.N.: Rating Scale Analysis. MESA, Chicago (1982)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Psicología Básica, Psicobiología y MetodologíaUniversidad de SalamancaSalamancaSpain
  2. 2.Universidade Estadual PaulistaGuaratinguetáBrazil

Personalised recommendations