You are on page 1of 8

Gagnier, K., M., and Fisher, K., R. (2016).

Spatial Thinking: A Missing Building Block in

STEM Education. Johns Hopkins University Institute for Education Policy Commentary,

July 2016.

http://scienceoflearning.jhu.edu/assets/documents/spatial_thinking_FINAL.pdf

This article explores studies carried out about spatial thinking that detail the benefits of spatial thinking

training on mental capabilities and performance in common school subjects such as chemistry or calculus.

It explains that early math ability is correlated to the presence of a spatial thinking ability. It details the

different factors that affected the studies and why or why not they could have affected the results in order

to determine the impact of spatial thinking itself.

The author, Kristin Gagnier is qualified to discuss spatial thinking because their credentials (or

experience) include Assistant Director of Dissemination, Translation, and Education her contact

information is included in the article. Written 3 years ago, this source is current on the topic of spatial

thinking. The author thoroughly evaluated how all sides of the issue were acknowledged by the source.

For example, different studies were evaluated that included higher level classes such as Calculus in

contrast to elementary school kids. The coverage can be considered broad and deep because the studies

are described, how they were carried out, and the conclusions generated. The information contained in the

source can be verified elsewhere. For example, the author says that training spatial thinking can improve

performance, which can be corroborated by J. J Jirout, in his publication “Building Blocks for Developing

Spatial Skills Evidence From a Large, Representative US Sample, Psychological science” which states

that children who play with spatial toys correlates to spatial development and increased mental

capabilities.​ ​The purpose of this article is to inform readers about spatial thinking and the benefits of

training. The audience is teachers and parents. The article is appropriate for this purpose and audience
because of the high level studies but also detailed descriptions of the benefits of training. For example, the

article references a variety of school subjects pertaining to the effect of spatial thinking on each.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles concepts and evidence.

Psychological Science in the Public Interest,​ 9(3), 105-119. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/PSPI_9_3.pdf

This exploratory article details the different studies carried out to evaluate whether or not learning styles

are a myth and evidence to suggest that learning style theories are not methodologically sound. It explains

that many of the studies used to support learning styles theories have been methodologically inadequate

and therefore provide insufficient or reliable results. It details the different factors in each of the studies

that cause them to be ineffective in proving learning styles in order to explain the lack of substantive

evidence.

The author, Harold Pashler, are qualified to discuss learning styles concepts because their credentials (or

experience) includes ​experimental psychologist and cognitive scientist and Distinguished Professor of

Psychology at University of California, San Diego​ and his contact information is included in the article.

Although written more than 10 years ago, this source is still relevant because it describes studies that were

methodologically sound in describing the evidence about learning styles. The author thoroughly evaluated

how all sides of the issue were acknowledged by the source. For example, the article cites a multitude of

studies that disprove a myth and why learning styles are essentially a myth. The author describes how

learning styles have spread and the reasonings of the opposing view who believe in learning styles. The

coverage can be considered broad and deep because learning styles were characterized as well as the

studies that were used to evaluate them. The information contained in the source can be verified

elsewhere. For example, the author says there is a lack of evidence for learning styles to be a concrete
factor in education, which can be corroborated by Daniel T. Willingham in his publication “Do visual,

auditory, and kinesthetic learners need visual, auditory, and kinesthetic instruction?”, which describes the

uses of learning styles and the lack of tangible benefits that would result from tailoring instruction to

learning preferences/styles. The purpose of this article is to inform on issues with the learning styles

standpoint and why it is a pervasive myth. The audience is teachers and fellow researchers. The article is

appropriate for this purpose and audience because of the high density descriptions of the studies and the

evaluations on the methodological soundness of the studies. For example, a study by Cronbach and Snow

was evaluated and found to have too brief treatment periods and issues with methodologies to create a

reliable or plausible conclusion on learning style implementation.

Newcombe, N. S. (2013). Seeing relationships: Using spatial thinking to teach science,

mathematics, and Social Studies. American Educator, 37(1), 26.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1006210.pdf

This explanatory article describes many studies that detail the benefits of spatial thinking and

provides many insights to different factors that could come about when talking about spatial

thinking abilities. It explains the different benefits that are visible across different levels of

instruction or classes. It describes the consequences of spatial thinking skills such as higher

achievement or a higher ratio of STEM career pursuers.

The author, Nora Newcombe , is qualified to discuss spatial thinking in the stem field because

their credentials (or experience) include(s) professor of psychology at Temple University and her

contact information is included in the article.​ ​Written 6 years ago, this source is current on the
topic of spatial thinking given its relevance with the new Society of Learning Institute at Johns

Hopkins University who support this idea. The author thoroughly evaluated how all sides of the

issue were acknowledged by the source. For example, different studies were evaluated that

suggested the same conclusions even across different levels such as age. The coverage can be

considered broad and deep because the author included information on how to improve results in

STEM fields, while also providing the results of studies that support the benefits of spatial

thinking training.​ ​The information contained in the source can be verified elsewhere. For

example, the author says spatial thinking benefits STEM field achievement, which can be

corroborated by Kristin Gagnier in her publication “Spatial Thinking: A Missing Building Block

in STEM Education”, which states the benefits of spatial thinking amount different age groups

and summarizes how overall, students with higher spatial thinking skills tended to go into STEM

field jobs. The purpose of this article is to inform readers about the benefits of spatial thinking.

The audience is parents, teachers, students. The article is appropriate for this purpose and

audience because it is relatively long, but provides sufficient evidence for the points made so that

the conclusions are taken very seriously. For example, the author also provided insight on

whether or not there are differences between sex in spatial thinking abilities, and provides

reasoning about why that question would turn out to be inconclusive.

​Filipczak, B. (1995, March). Different strokes: learning styles in the classroom. ​Training​, ​32​(3),

43+. Retrieved from

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A16762521/GPS?u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=10388aea
This explanatory article delves into why no perceptual strength is the best while also suggesting

more effective methods to deliver information. It explains that different groups of individuals

may perform at different levels based on how the information was originally presented. The

author suggests two effective ways to learn that synthesize different methods that cater to each

perceptual strength while also explaining while only catering to one strength can lead to issues.

While different learning styles do exist, the author explains that no learning style is superior over

the others and are dependent on how the brain processes information. The article also details how

a trainer/teacher has to be mindful about their own perceptual strengths so that they don’t lean

towards one type of presentation if it works for them. The author also states that admittedly,

although some people have different perceptual strengths, it is important for them to learn how to

adapt and be able to perceive information from different types of presentations.

Bob Filipczak has expertise in the field of communications and presenting information because

of his position as ​Communications Coordinator at National Road Research Alliance and a

distinguished author and editor that has been involved in many works related to communication

such as ​Communications Consultant​ alongside Piper Jaffray. Filipczak can be googled, in which

his LinkedIn profile can be found as well as his contact info. The author explains all sides of the

argument. For example, he explains each of the different types of perceptual strengths and where

they apply. He makes it clear that the target demographic/audience is teachers by addressing

them and the purpose is to correct how teachers go about creating lessons. This article does not

fall within the 10 year currency rule, but is still a credible source due to the author’s occupation

as well as a lack of more recent articles that pertain to the specific topic at hand. The article can
be corroborated by other works such as ​Thirty-Five Years of Research on Perceptual Strengths:

Essential Strategies to Promote Learning ​by Kenneth Dunn which provides insight into different

studies carried out that support the usefulness of a mixed learning environment. The author

includes information from studies from ​St. John's University Center for the Study of Learning

and Teaching Styles in Jamaica, NY, who have been studying ‘learning styles’ for over 25 years

and are a proven veritable source.

Willingham, D. T. (2018, Summer). ASK THE COGNITIVE SCIENTIST: Does Tailoring

Instruction to "Learning Styles" Help Students Learn? ​American Educator​, ​42​(2), 28+. Retrieved

from

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A543900498/GPS?u=glen20233&sid=GPS&xid=b0006d92

This article discusses the theory of whether or not catering to a student’s learning method is

actually helpful. It explains that people take preference to different types of presentations, but it

may not increase task performance. Different parts of the brain are used to perceive different

types of information. The author references a study in which researchers discovered that people

with different perceptual biases re-encoded information into their style and worked with that, but

it did not enhance their performance. The author discusses interesting things to take away from

the studies such as how people can choose which type of mental processing they use, and how

there is newly-emerging evidence that suggests that learning-styles do not benefit the results, but

do make the individuals more comfortable with what they are working on. The author brings in

the question of whether catering to these different perceptual options is worth it if the end result
does not change. The author also determines that although the end result may be the same, if

students are taught to match tasks to their perceptual preference, information retention is

increased.

Daniel T. Willingham has expertise in the field as a Professor of Psychology at the University of

Virginia. He has written a multitude of related articles such as ​How to teach critical thinking o​ r

Why students remember or forget.​ He also provides contact information on his website,

danielwillingham.com, so he is accountable for his work. This current article also makes sure to

address both sides of the argument, taking into account evidence that argues opposing points of

view. For example, he provides evidence to suggest that there are no direct benefits of catering to

perceptual bias as well as providing countering evidence that may suggest that it may still be

helpful in certain situations. The author makes it clear that the article is targeted towards

American Educators and teachers and that the purpose is to inform teachers on what they may

need to change in their teaching methods. The information in the article can be corroborated by

articles such as ​Effective Teaching Methods in Higher Education: Requirements and Barriers b​ y

Nahid Shirani Bidabadi, which describes how to best teach students and whether perceptual

biases are important to note. Many other sources were referenced and cited in the end notes as

well, making it clear that information was corroborated before publication.

You might also like