Running Head: PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

Pairing Students in CAD Training to Improve Spatial Visualization Ability

Larry D. Singleton
Kennesaw State University

Dr. Joanna Gilmore

Applied Field Research W06 Spring Semester 2015 CO EDRS 8900
April 25, 2015

PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

Introduction
I teach Architectural Drawing and Design and Engineering Graphics and Design
pathways at the high school level. A significant portion of the courses taught in those pathways
focus on Computer Aided Design (CAD) skills. CAD is identified by the U.S. Department of
Labor as one of five high level competencies in the educational framework necessary for success
in advanced manufacturing industries (2006). Competencies in personal effectiveness,
academics, and workplace skills form the three base levels of that framework. That fact alone
gives value to my teaching, but two other significant educational research findings add even
more significance to CAD skills education. The first is a correlation between development of
CAD skills and spatial visualization abilities (SVA). The second is the relationship of spatial
visualization abilities and problem solving in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics) endeavors (Olkun, 2003). Thus, this topic is relevant to current global initiatives
for improvement in STEM education.
Knowing that teaching CAD will help students develop SVA, and that students with
higher SVA achieve at higher levels in STEM, the positive effects of my successful teaching are
a foregone conclusion. However, what are the possibilities of further enhancing the effect of my
teaching by leveraging the advantages of student collaboration in pairs that has also be shown in
research to positively affect learning (Webb, Farivar, & Mastergeorge, 2001). This study focuses
on student parings based strictly on SVA ratings, without consideration of race, gender, ethnicity,
sexual orientation, or culture. The implications of findings, particularly with respect to online
learning environments, where all of those identities are less obvious, could have a profound
effect on future teaching/learning strategies of educators.

PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

Courses that offer students the opportunity to learn Computer Aided Drawing & Design
(CAD) rely on the development of spatial-visualization abilities to achieve higher level skills
within that discipline. More significantly, research shows that spatial ability is important to
learning within the STEM domains (Wai, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2009). Design Engineering and
Architectural Design specifically need students who develop strong visualization skills along
with CAD skills and other content taught within those disciplines. Spatial visualization ability
tests can serve as predictors of achievement in courses that require such skills (Bodner & Guay,
1997), and research has also shown that spatial ability can be improved with practice and training
(Sorby & Baartmans, 2000) (Onyancha, Derov, & Kinsey, 2009) This connection between
learning CAD and development of spatial-visualization ability, coupled with the correlation of
those abilities with achievement in STEM is the basis of rationale for conducting this study.
The intervention used in this study is also informed by research that has shown how
learning can be enhanced when students are grouped in cooperative groups to work on project
assignments (Chuang, Chiang, Yang, & Tsai, 2012) and specifically in pairs (Webb, Farivar, &
Mastergeorge, 2001). The practice of most teachers in arranging student pairs ranges from
random selection or free choice to intentional pairing of the students. It is very difficult to follow
a specific strategy for assigning student pairs. The classroom dynamics, student relationships,
social groups, grade levels, and numerous other factors make the application of a specific
formula based on available metrics unrealistic. Many experienced teachers are talented at setting
up functional pairs that support learning, but talented, experienced teachers are not found in
100% of classrooms. As teaching and learning models in the 21st century are gradually shifting
from face-to-face to online environments, opportunities for innovative strategies are expanding.
A study of student pairs collaborating asynchronously in a learning management system (LMS)

PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

environment resulted in learners who viewed the experience as enjoyable, motivating, and
effective (Zin & Idris, 2006)
The design of this study is also based on my hypothesis which is extrapolated from
research and forms the basis for this project. My hypothesis is: if learning is enhanced by student
pair collaboration, and SVA are improved by learning CAD, then effective student learning pairs
will serve to enhance training for development of SVA. This premise assumes applicability of
the hypothesis to online, blended, or traditional learning environments. Constraints beyond the
control of this researcher mandate that this study be conducted in the currently blended learning
environment where students are delivered content and assignments at school, in regular class
periods, through a learning management system.
Review of Literature
Research has confirmed that learning environments offering tasks with authentic
meaning, and opportunities to work with friends help to increase accountability and
interdependence in collaborative relationships (Wang, 2009); however, Wang concluded that
effective collaboration may also rely on other strategies. This finding leaves open the possibility
that my research may provide at least one other strategy to increase the effectiveness of
collaborative learning environments specifically, student parings based on ability level.
Learning potential and improvements in achievement are increased in environments
where collaboration between students is encouraged, but the benefit of working in collaborative
situations is not experienced by all students. Students who have difficulty understanding the
subject matter are especially prone to respond poorly to such experiences (Webb &
Mastergeorge, 2003). This research by Webb and Mastergeorge identifies that help-giving and

PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

help-seeking behaviors practiced by students in small groups are key to effective collaboration.
Students who are persistent in asking precise questions, and application of the explanations
provided are effective help-seekers. Students who are effective help-givers were identified as
those who offer detailed explanations and help others with opportunities for application of
solutions/explanations. Students who help others also monitor their understanding of the subject
(Webb & Mastergeorge, 2003). This study will seek to find an implementation structure that
compels students working in pairs to take on these specific roles in their collaborative
relationships. In other words, if I limit the access to my help as the instructor, I thereby
encourage students to rely on each other to find answers and solutions. An online learning
environment is conducive to this type of structure. Access to the instructor is typically limited to
specific office hours, or a limited number of synchronous online sessions.
Structuring heterogeneous student groups based on abilities, and assigning those groups
to participate in activities such as project-based learning has been studied before, and the effects
have been a subject of ongoing debate. One research study asserts that student self-efficacy is not
affected by group heterogeneity. Findings in this study indicate that both low and high achievers
benefit when the quality of the group process itself is improved (Cheng, Shui-fong Lam, & Chan,
2008). Efforts to employ pedagogical practices that encourage and compel students to equally
contribute on assignments will serve to maintain the highest possible quality of group processes.
Individual assignments within collaborative projects will help to mitigate factors of individual
students not contributing that might otherwise influence outcomes.
Numerous studies have evaluated the effect of parings based on: 1) random selection
versus deliberate selection (Moore, 2011), 2) personality and academic achievement
(McClanaghan, 2000), 3) ability and gender (Parker, 2010), 4) assigned pair versus free

PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

selection (Papadopoulos, Lagkas, & Demetriadis, 2012), and even self-efficacy, but the topic of
parings based on a specific aptitude, as measured by an aptitude test, was not found in this
review of current literature. Other findings in the literature review illustrate some of the unique
advantages of learning in an online environment. One report compares face-to-face discourse
with online discussions in student groups. Qui and McDougall found that greater interaction
opportunities were one of the advantages small groups engaged in online learning. (2013)
A study using two dimensional rotation and 3D rotation tests identified a correlation
between visual-spatial skills and achievement in critical thinking project assignments. (Stumpf &
Eliot, 1999) This research supports a basic premise of the study proposed herein. Projects
designed to challenge critical thinking and requiring visual-spatial reasoning will be a significant
part of the learning that student pairs will be exposed to. Further evidence that exercising in a 3D
digital environment enhances visual thinking has been published (Hauptman, 2010). Most of the
projects assigned in my study will be carried out in the 3D digital environment of Autodesk
Inventor.
In summary, my review of literature relevant to, aptitudes and student parings form the
foundation for this study. Studies have clearly identified that spatial visualization skills can be
improved through learning, and that student parings can enhance learning. Literature on the
combined application of these findings to online/blended learning outcomes is not available.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study is to examine the correlations, if any, between the structures of
learning pairs, with respect to measured SVA, and the learning outcomes of individuals within
those pairs. Can student pairs that are arranged on the basis of SVA levels affect greater positive

PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

gains in individual student SVA? In this study the analysis is narrowly focused on the effect of
all possible SVA based student pair combinations on SVA gains of those students by pretest and
posttest scores on a valid and reliable assessment. The results were measured over the course of a
7 week unit of study on the creation of 3D model assemblies in Autodesk Inventor. Assemblies
are created by constraining individual parts together based on restriction of six degrees of
freedom (three planar, and three axial possibilities of movement). Those exercises require spatial
visualization skills and critical thinking. Research has specifically identified a correlation
between the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test: Visualization of Rotations (PSVT:R) and a test
measuring students understanding of an assembly drawing and their ability to model the
individual parts using 3D solid modeling software (Branoff & Dobelis, 2012). The project based
lessons in the unit on modeling 3D assemblies will be assigned to collaborative student pairs to
be maintained for the duration of the study. The make-up of those student pairs will be based on
SVA ratings established by a pretest. If any significant correlations between a given pair type
and ability gains based on posttest scores are found (positive or negative), strategies for future
pedagogical practices will be recommended.
Research Questions
The goal of this research is identification of the most effective way to establish student
learning pairs on the basis of SVA pre-tests. Those same tests were administered after course
completion to measure individual student gains. The questions to be answered by the data
collected in this project include:
1. What is the distribution of SVA pre-test scores? From that data students will be identified
at one of three SVA Levels. Those levels (Low, Medium and High) will be used to assign

PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

students in the experimental group to pairs with all six of the different Level
combinations. Those six pairing structures will comprise the independent variables in the
study.
2. What are the mean changes in SVA of all students who complete the drawing and design
course used in this study as measured by a post-test? This distribution of dependent
variable data will be compared as a whole to the pre-test data and analyzed to determine
the average SVA gains, and their statistical significance.
3. What are the mean SVA gains of students in the six structured pair types and how do
those gains compare to the average for all students?
4. Which type(s) of SVA pairings show the highest individual SVA gains?
Importance of the Study
Most of the factors that make structured pairing strategies difficult to facilitate in a
traditional classroom are absent in the virtual classrooms of on-line learning. The virtual
learning environment is conducive to research based strategies for the formation of all types of
student learning groups without the social factors that influence the process in face-to-face or
blended environments. On-line courses are generally populated with students who do not have
prior relationships, and are much less likely to be pre-judged by their peers. This study is
positioned to determine if measured ability ratings based on test scores, and used as the primary
factor in structuring learning pairs, can affect the learning outcomes of students. Findings may
hold important implications for online pedagogy.

Definition of Terms

PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

Computer Aided Drawing and Design (CAD): A software program that enables users to
create digital models of anything that can be built, manufactured or made.
Learning Management System (LMS): A learning management system is an online
platform for student access to learning content, assignments and assessments, and instructor
access for management, development and administration of the same.
Spatial Visualization Ability (SVA): Spatial visualization is the ability to imagine
rotations of objects or their parts in 3-D space (Olkun, 2003).
Student pairs: A student pair in the context of this study is a group of two students who
are assigned to work together.
Study Design
An experimental design was followed to examine the influence of different types of
student pairs (the independent variables) on changes in SVA test scores of individual students
(the dependent variable) over the duration of a 6 week unit of instruction on 3D assemblies in
Autodesk Inventor designed to affect the ability test scores.
A license for administration of the PSVT:R was obtained from ENGAGE which is an
Extension Services Project funded by the National Science Foundation. The test will be
embedded in a Coursesites by Blackboard classroom, established for pre-test and post-test
administration and management of the 3D Modeling of Assemblies Unit of Instruction that was
administered in this study.

PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

10

Data Sources and Collection

A scanned digital version of the PSVT:R test was purchased for $25.00 from ETS at this
link. The license purchase acknowledgement email from ETS was forwarded to ENGAGE at
mailto:info@engageengineering.org along with identification of the LMS to be used for
administration of the test. The PSVT:R consists of 30 multiple choice questions and has a time
limit of 20 minutes.
Participants
The PSVT:R was administered to 58 9th 12th grade students (Males = 40 and Females =
18) enrolled in Introduction to Drafting and Design at McIntosh High School in Fayette County,
Georgia. The subjects were divided into three levels of ability (Low, Medium and High) based on
the distribution of test scores. Students across all three classes were randomly assigned to a
partner, and each of those parings was classified as one of the six unique combinations of ability
levels represented by the following ordered pairs: [(L,L); (L,M); (L,H); (M,M); (M,H); or (H,H)]
Spatial Visualization Training
The six week unit of study on modeling of 3D assemblies was delivered as blended
learning on a Coursesites by Blackboard LMS. Lessons contained a variety of screen-cast
presentations, practice exercises, project assignments, and formative and summative
assessments, on which all students were encouraged to collaborate with their designated partner.
Every item in the learning module was carefully structured to avoid any possibility of one
student doing all of the work while both students get the credit. However, grades on all items
except summative assessments were shared by both partners as an incentive for students to help
each other succeed.

PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

11

Full documentation of the six week training on the LMS is available via hyperlink in
Appendix D to a request for invitation to the course.
Reliability and Validity
According to Branoff who revised the original PSVT:R test in 1999 to use trimetric
pictorials rather than the original isometric pictorials that were easily confused with 2D patterns,
analysis of the validity and reliability leads to the conclusion that based on the statistical
analyses, it appears that the revised PSVT is as good a measure of spatial visualization ability as
the original PSVT. (2000, p. 20)
Hypotheses
As indicated in my literature review, research on aptitude level based pairings was not
found. Therefore, these predictions are based on speculation rather than research, and only serve
to provide points of reference for structuring any conclusions that the data may enable:
1. Student pairs with a Low SVA and a High SVA will be least successful in SVA gains.
2. Student pairs with equal SVA Level students will achieve insignificant SVA gains.
3. Low-Medium or Medium-High pairings will demonstrate the highest gains in individual
SVA.
The rational in all three of these predictions is based on speculation that students who are
close, but not the same, in levels of ability are more likely to be helpful to each other than
students with similar abilities, or those at opposite ends of the ability scale.
Data Analysis
Students were categorized into one of three Spatial-Visualization Skill Levels based on
the pre-test scores. The cut-off scores used were those that divided the total into thirds, as closely

PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

12

as possible. Twenty students with scores between 3 and 16 were listed as Low; twenty with
scores between 17 and 20 as Medium; and eighteen High level students who had scores between
21 and 28. Over the course of the 6 week Unit of Instruction on 3D Model Assemblies in
Autodesk Inventor students worked in the assigned pairs on three of five projects assigned.
Results showed significant gains in the PSVT:R scores from pre- to post-test for all
students.
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Post-test PSVT:R Scores

Pre-test PSVT:R Scores

A paired two t-test for means was used to compute a t-value between the means of the pre-test
and post-test scores for the 58 students. The result of the two sample t-test yielded a p-value well
below the .05 alpha level (t=1.67, df=57, p=0.000002). This indicates that the unit of instruction
on assemblies in Inventor was effective and student spatial visualization skills improved.
A one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences in the means
of net score gains/losses of students in each of the six ordered pairs of levels. Rather than
aggregate the scores of the pairs, I decided to analyze the data for individual student growth
based on parings. In other words, how well did Low students do when paired with others from
the same Level versus Medium and High? Scores for Medium students were also looked at on

PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

13

the basis of paring with same or different levels, and the scores of High level students who paired
with like or lower Level students were analyzed.
The ANOVA for Low students showed that scores increased more for those paired with
High students or others who were Low. Score increases of Low students paired with students at
the Middle level were much smaller. However the difference between the means of the three
groups was not significant (F(2,17)=3.32, p>0.05). It is unfortunate that the sample sizes were
very low for this analysis, which may explain why statistical significance was not found.
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups
Low students paired
together
Low paired with Medium
Low paired with High

Count

Avera
ge

Sum

10
7
3

71
13
21

7.10
1.86
7

Varian
ce

21.88
18.81
4

ANOVA
Source of Variation

Within Groups

SS
123.9
9
317.7
6

Total

441.7
5

Between Groups

df

MS
2

62.00

17

18.69

F
3.32

Pvalue
0.06

F crit
3.59

19

The ANOVA for Medium students showed that the difference between the means of the
scores from the three different level parings was also found to not be significant (F(2,17)=0.33,
p>0.05).
Anova: Single Factor

PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

14

SUMMARY
Groups
Medium students paired
with Low
Medium paired together
Medium paired with High

Count

Avera
ge

Sum

7
8
5

25
15
15

3.57
1.88
3

Varian
ce
8.95
12.41
37.5

ANOVA
Source of Variation
Between Groups
Within Groups

SS
11.16
290.5
9

Total

301.7
5

df
2

MS
5.58

17

17.09

F
0.33

Pvalue
0.73

F crit
3.59

19

The difference in mean score changes of High students were put to the same test and,
once again, the results were not significant (F(2,15)=1.03, p>0.05).
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups
High Students paired with
Low
High paired with Medium
High paired together

Count

Avera
ge

Sum

3
5
10

Varian
ce

8
-1
4

2.67
-0.20
0.4

2.33
12.7
7.16

MS
8.21

F
1.03

15

7.99

ANOVA
Source of Variation
Between Groups
Within Groups

SS
16.41
119.8
7

Total

136.2
8

df

17

Pvalue
0.38

F crit
3.68

PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

15

The data collected and analyzed do not support any of the three hypothesis presented
herein, however the findings point to some different ideas of how pairings based on tested
abilities may affect gains in those abilities. The results clearly indicate that students who scored
low on the pre-test, and worked on assignments with other Low or with the High level students
had the greatest gains from the training. Those students were the ones with the most room for
improvement on a 30 point test. It is also interesting to observe that Medium and High students
who worked with Low students had positive gains in their own mean scores. This is indicative
that the process of helping others yields personal gains in understanding as well. Perhaps the
most interesting observation is found in looking at the average gains in scores of students who
were paired with Medium Students. Except in the case of High students paired together, the
average gains for any level of student paired with a Medium level student were below the
average gains of the other two pairings. This observation suggests that students of Medium (or to
say it another way, average) abilities were not motivated to improve or help others to improve.
This observation lends itself to another can of worms in the culture of our youth today. That
issue is one I categorize as mediocrity syndrome, and a vast area where additional research is
warranted. Lastly, Scores of High students paired with Medium students actually dropped on
average. This is another result that may be related to the contagious nature of mediocrity
syndrome, and a subject of potentially valuable research.
Groups
Low students paired
together
Low paired with Medium
Low paired with High
Medium students paired
with Low

Count

Sum

10
7
3
7

71
13
21
25

Avera
ge

Variance

7.10
1.86
7.00
3.57

21.88
18.81
4
8.95

PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

Medium paired together

15

Medium paired with High

High Students paired with
Low
High paired with Medium
High paired together

15

1.88
3.
00

3
5
10

8
-1
4

2.67
-0.20
0.40

16

12.41
37.5
2.33
12.7
7.16

As much as I would like to conclude that intentional parings of students based on pre-test
aptitudes can be structured to affect greater gains in skills related to those aptitudes, the data
collected in this study was not significant.
Conclusion
These findings suggest that additional studies on a larger scale are warranted. I feel that I
added an unnecessary level of complexity by assigning partners randomly across three different
classes of students so that some of the partnerships would be virtual. In other words, the
students would be limited to collaboration via email and sharing of files. About a third of the
pairings were within the same class and collaboration was much easier for them. One pair
actually sat next to each other, and several others were close enough to easily talk to each other
during assignments. The fact that some of the student pairs were virtual and some were not
created an additional variable that could, and probably did affect the observed results. It would
have been better in this study to establish all of the student pairs within assigned classes, and
arrange student seating so that all pairs were next to each other.
Another factor that affected the validity of this study was the number of students
involved. Because of the categorization of students into different levels of SVA, and the
subsequent categorization of six different types of pairs, the numbers of those different pairs fell
short of a minimum of fifteen that would have allowed for valid analysis. Additionally, the
categorization of students into only three levels of ability based on the pre-test scores may also

PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

17

be a mistake. It would be a more accurate identification of ability levels if four groups of

students were identified; two above the median and two below. This would result in ten, rather
than six, different types of pairings, and that would necessitate even greater numbers of
participants.
Based on my knowledge gained from this study, I truly believe there is substance to the
idea that higher levels of student achievement can, in fact, result from paring strategies based on
aptitude test results. I further believe that this concept of a pairing strategy would be especially
beneficial in online teaching/learning environments where students are not able to develop faceto-face relationships.

PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

18

References
Bodner, G. M., & Guay, R. B. (1997). The Purdue visualization of rotations test. The Chemical
Educator, 2(4), 1-17.
Branoff, T. J. (2000). Spatial visualization measurement: A modification of the Purdue Spatial
Visualization Test - Visualization of Rotations. Engineering Design Graphics Journal,
64(2), 14-22.
Branoff, T. J., & Dobelis, M. (2012). The relationship between spatial visualization ability and
students ability to model 3D objects from engineering assembly drawings. Engineering
Design Graphics Journal, 76(3), 37-43.
Cheng, R. W., Shui-fong Lam, & Chan, J. C. (2008). When high achievers and low achievers
work in the same group: The roles of group heterogeneity and processes in project-based
learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 205-221.
Chuang, P.-J., Chiang, M.-C., Yang, C.-S., & Tsai, C.-W. (2012). Social networks-based adaptive
pairing strategy for cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
15(3), 226-239.
Ferguson, C., Ball, A., McDaniel, W., & Anderson, R. (2008). A comparison of instructional
methods for improving the spatial-visualization ability of freshmen technology seminar
students. Proceedings of The 2008 IAJC-IJME International Conference (Paper 037).
Nashville, TN: International Association of Journals and Conferences and International
Journal of Modern Engineering.
Hauptman, H. (2010). Enhancement of spatial thinking with virtual spaces 1.0. Computers &
Education, 54, 123-135. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.013
Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth. (2012). Measuring Spatial Ability.
McClanaghan, M. E. (2000). A strategy for helping students learn how to learn. Education,
120(3), 479.
Moore, R. L. (2011). The effect of group composition on individual student performance in an
introductory economics course. Journal of Economic Education, 42(2), 120-135.
doi:10.1080/00220485.2011.555694
Olkun, S. (2003, April). Making connections: Improving spatial abilities with engineering
drawing activities. International Journal of Mathematics Teaching and Learning.

PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

19

Onyancha, R. M., Derov, M., & Kinsey, B. L. (2009). Improvements in spatial ability as a result
of targeted training and computer-aided design software use: Analyses of object
geometries and rotation types. Journal of Engineering Education, 157-167.
Papadopoulos, P. M., Lagkas, T. D., & Demetriadis, S. N. (2012). How to improve the peer
review method: Free-selection vs assigned-pair protocol evaluated in a computer networking
course. Computers & Education, 59, 182-195. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.005
Parker, J. (2010). An empirical examination of the roles of ability and gender in collaborative
homework assignments. Journal of Economic Education, 41(1), 15.
doi:10.1080/01615440903382177
Qiu, M., & McDougall, D. (2013). Foster strengths and circumvent weaknesses: Advantages and
disadvantages of online versus face-to-face subgroup discourse Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.005
Sorby, S. A., & Baartmans, B. J. (2000). The development and assessment of a course for
enhancing the 3-D spatial visualization skills of first year engineering students. Journal
of Engineering Education, 301-307.
Stumpf, H., & Eliot, J. (1999). A structural analysis of visual spatial ability in academically
talented students. Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 137-151. doi:10.1016/S10416080(00)80002-3
U.S. Department of Labor. (2006). Framework of Competencies by the Advanced Manufacturing
Industry.
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. (2009). Spatial Ability for STEM Domains: Aligning Over
50 Years of Cumulative Psychological Knowledge Solidifies Its Importance. Journal of
Educational Knowledge, 817-835.
Wang, Q. (2009). Design and evaluation of a collaborative learning environment. Computers &
Education, 53, 1138-1146. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.023
Webb, N. M., Farivar, S. H., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2001). Productive helping in cooperative
groups. Graduate School of Education & Information Studies. Los Angeles, CA:
University of California, Los Angeles.
Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Chapter 4: Promoting effective helping behavior in
peer-directed groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 73-97.
doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00074-0

PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

20

Zin, A. M., & Idris, S. (2006). Implementing virtual pair programming in e-learning
environment. Journal of Information Systems Education, 17(2), p113-117.

Appendix
A. Purdue Spatial Visualization Test:
B. U.S. Department of Labor Framework of Competencies by the Advanced Manufacturing
Industry

Level 4 Industry-Wide Technical Competencies

Manufacturing Process Design/Development
CAD Drawing Fundamentals
o Creation of Computer Aided Design (CAD) Drawings
o Interpretation of CAD Drawings
o Updating and Editing CAD Drawings
o CAD/CAM/CAE Applications
C. The pre-test, post-test, and the unit of study designed to help students build spatial
visualization skills, and work in pairs on many of the projects and assignments are

PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

21

presented to students through a CourseSites by Blackboard LMS. The image below

shows the initial LMS page used for the pre-test:

D. Access the Coursesites by Blackboard platform in which this Unit of study was delivered
to the students. Follow the Guest Enrollment steps illustrated here:

Select I Need a Coursesites Account.

PAIRING STUDENTS FOR SPATIAL VISUALIZATION IMPROVEMENT

Complete the account sign-up to be connected to the course as a guest.

22