Spatial Visualization and Leadership in Teaching Multiview

Western Michigan University Western Michigan University

ScholarWorks at WMU ScholarWorks at WMU

Dissertations Graduate College

4-1992

Spatial Visualization and Leadership in Teaching Multiview Spatial Visualization and Leadership in Teaching Multiview

Orthographic Projection: An Alternative to the Glass Box Orthographic Projection: An Alternative to the Glass Box

Mark A. Curtis Western Michigan University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations

Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Curtis, Mark A., "Spatial Visualization and Leadership in Teaching Multiview Orthographic Projection: An Alternative to the Glass Box" (1992). Dissertations. 1936. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/1936

This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected].

http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/


https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/grad

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fdissertations%2F1936&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/796?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fdissertations%2F1936&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/1936?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fdissertations%2F1936&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]



SPATIAL VISUALIZATION AND LEADERSHIP IN TEACHING MULTIVIEW ORTHOGRAPHIC PROJECTION:

AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE GLASS BOX

by

Mark A. Curt is

A D isser ta t ion Submitted to the

Faculty of The Graduate College in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the

requirements fo r the Degree of Doctor of Education

Department of Educational Leadership

Western Michigan Un ivers i ty Kalamazoo, Michigan

A p r i l 1992

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

SPATIAL VISUALIZATION AND LEADERSHIP IN TEACHING MULTIVIEW ORTHOGRAPHIC PROJECTION:

AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE GLASS BOX

Mark A. C u rt is , Ed.D.

Western Michigan U n ive rs i ty , 1992

The purpose of t h is study was to compare the e f fec t iveness of

using one in s t ru c t io n a l method versus another in teaching multiv iew

orthographic p ro jec t ion to col lege students possessing var ied spa

t i a l v i s u a l i z a t io n a b i l i t i e s . Two in s t ru c t io n a l methods were used:

(1) the t r a d i t i o n a l hinged glass box method and (2) an unconven

t io n a l method in which an object is placed in the middle of a bowl/

hemispheric shape where the f ro n t view of the object is seen by

looking d i r e c t l y into the bowl. Other views are developed by s l i d

ing the object along the surface of the bowl u n t i l they are at r ig h t

angle to the v iewer 's l in e of s igh t . The independent v a r iab le

manipulated was the in s t ru c t io n a l method and the dependent v a r iab le

was the spa t ia l v i s u a l i z a t io n development of students as demon

stra ted through t h e i r a b i l i t y to mental ly solve complex multiv iew

orthographic p ro jec t ion problems.

The subjects were mostly freshmen and sophomores majoring in

engineering technology enro l led in two in ta c t basic engineering

graphics classes at F e r r is State U n ive rs i ty , Big Rapids, Michigan.

The sample s ize was 92. The D i f f e r e n t i a l Apti tude Test, Space Rela

t io n s : Form T (DAT-SR-T, Bennett, Seashore, & Wesman, 1972) was


administered to a l l sub jects . Scores a t ta ined on the DAT-SR-T were

used to d iv ide the subjects in to three groups and four v is u a l i z a t io n

apt i tude le v e ls . Subjects were also given a 12- item pre tes t for

mult iv iew orthographic p ro jec t ion knowledge, taken from the Western

Michigan Un ive rs i ty (Kalamazoo) Career Guidance Inventory Part 4

(Nowak, Walter , Vander Ark, & Henry, 1980).

Group 1 r e c e iv e d 2 hours o f i n s t r u c t i o n using g lass box

imagery, Group 2 received 2 hours of bowl imagery, and Group 3 r e

ceived no formal orthographic in s t ru c t io n . Hypotheses were formu

lated and tested fo r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f fe rences between treatment and

control groups for each apt i tude le v e l . The 12-i tem orthographic

te s t was given to a l l subjects to record sp a t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n a b i l

i t y gains. The data c o l lec ted were analyzed using the S t a t i s t i c a l

Package of Social Sciences (SPSS, In c . , 1990) software, Release 4 .1 .

No s ig n i f i c a n t d i f fe renc e in sp a t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n gain scores was

found between treatment groups or apt i tude leve ls at the .05 le v e l .


INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality o f this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

University M icrofilms International A Bell & Howell Information C om pany

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600



Order Num ber 9222441

Spatial visualization and leadership in teaching multiview orthographic projection: An alternative to the glass box

Curtis, Mark A., Ed.D.

Western Michigan University, 1992

U M I300 N. Zeeb Rd.Ann Arbor, MI 48106



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

During the preparation of th is d is s e r ta t io n , I have been given

guidance and support by many ind iv idua ls and organ izat ions. I wish

to give special thanks to my advisor and committee chairman, Dr.

Kenneth Dickie fo r his assistance, d i r e c t io n , and support over the

past 6 years; and to my committee members, Dr. David Cowden and Dr.

Richard Munsterman, for t h e i r recommendations and advice. Also,

a p p r e c ia t i o n is expressed to Dr. Edgar K e l l e y and Dr. U ld is

Smidchens fo r t h e i r encouragement during the developmental stages of

my d is s e r ta t io n proposal w r i t in g .

Mark Nickel of Western Michigan U n iv e rs i ty 's Human Subjects

I n s t i t u t i o n a l Review Board was also very h e lp fu l . Dr. Gerard Nowak

also gave many f in e suggestions and much assistance r e l a t i n g to

instrumentation and methodology. Dr. Fred Swartz of Ferr is State

U n ive rs i ty is also much appreciated fo r his help in evaluation of

the research f in d in g s . I am also thankful tha t Lee Pakko w i l l i n g l y

agreed to take on the task of typing. The Administra tion of Fe r r is

State U n ive rs i ty is appreciated fo r the support they provided me

through a one-term sabbatical leave.

I also wish to thank many of my close f r iend s f o r t h e i r moral

support, e s p e c ia l ly V i r g i n ia VanWie, Dr. Janet Towne, Doug and El len

Hanel ine, Manuel and Eloisa Puerta, and David Murray. And f i n a l l y ,

I am most g ra te fu l fo r the love and encouragement given to me by my

i i


Acknowledgments--Continued

parents, Lawrence and Marlene Curt is ; my ch i ld ren , Aaron and Leah

and my w i fe , Margaret , during the completion of th is study.

Mark A. Curt is

i i i


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................................... i i

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ v i i

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... ix

CHAPTER

I . INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1

Purpose of the Study ......................................................................... 3

The Variables .......................................................................... 3

Educational Leadership ................................................................ 4

Need fo r the Study ......................................................................... 5

The Scope and Limits of the Study ....................................... 8

I I . RELEVANT LITERATURE .............................................................................. 9

Comparative In s t ru c t io n a l Methods ....................................... 9

Summary of Research on In s t ru c t io n a l Methods ................. 17

Studies of Ind iv idua l Cognit ive Di f ference .................. 18

Summary of Research on Cognit ive Ch arac te r is t ies . . . 21

Psychological Constructs ........................................................... 21

Summary o f Research on Psychological Constructs . . . . 23

The Hinged Glass Box .................................................................... 23

The Bowl/Hemisphere ....................................................................... 24

Hypotheses ........................................................................................... 27

Primary Research Hypotheses .............................................. 28

Secondary Research Hypotheses ......................................... 29

A Final Comment ................................................................................ 29

iv


Table o f Contents--Continued

CHAPTER

I I I . RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .................................................... 30

Population ........................................................................................... 30

Research Design ................................................................................ 30

Pretest fo r Spat ia l V is u a l i z a t io n A b i l i t y .............. 31

Pretes t fo r Orthographic Project ion Knowledge . . . 36

Design of Treatment ................................................................ 36

The Posttest ................................................................................ 39

Insuring Subject C o n f id e n t ia l i t y .................................. 39

Threats to V a l i d i t y ............................................................... 40

An Ethical Concern .................................................................. 41

Data Analysis .................................................................................... 41

IV. FINDINGS ...................................................................................................... 43

Primary Research Hypotheses .................................................... 52

Secondary Research Hypotheses ................................................ 55

Summary.................................................................................................. 59

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 61

Pre tes t ing fo r Spat ia l V is u a l i z a t io n A b i l i t y .............. 62

Pretes t ing fo r Mult iv iew Orthographic Project ionAb i 1 i t y .................................................................................................. 63

Primary Research Hypotheses ..................................................... 64

Secondary Research Hypotheses ................................................ 66

Spat ia l V is u a l i z a t io n Imagery ................................................ 68

Recommendations fo r Further Study ....................................... 69

v


Table o f Contents--Continued

APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... 71

A. D e f in i t io n of Terms ............................................................................. 72

B. Recruitment Scrip t ................................................................................ 76

C. Consent Form ............................................................................................. 78

D. D i f f e r e n t i a l Apti tude Test Space Relat ions Form TDirect ions and Examples ..................................................................... 80

E. Western Michigan U n ive rs i ty Diagnostic/AchievementQuiz, Spatia l Percept ion, D i rec t io ns , and Example ......... 84

F. Corre la t ion Data f o r Two Pretests ............................................. 88

G. P re tes t /P o s t tes t /G a in fo r Standard DeviationCalcu la t ion Data ..................................................................................... 92

H. Complete Raw Data by Subject, Test , Group, andApti tude Level ......................................................................................... 96

I . Approval Le t te r From Western Michigan U n ivers i tyHuman Subjects I n s t i t u t i o n a l Review Board ............................ 100

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................ 102

vi


LIST OF TABLES

1. Frequency D i s t r ib u t io n of the DAT-SR-T Scores .......................... 32

2. DAT-SR-T Raw Score Test Results by Group ..................................... 34

3. Comparison Table of DAT-SR-T Pretest Scores and Orthographic Spat ia l Perception Pretest Scoresby Ind iv idual Subject and Group ......................................................... 37

4. Group 1 (Hinged Glass Box Imagery) Treatment Ef fec tData by Apti tude Level ............................................................................. 43

5. Group 2 (Bowl/Hemisphere Imagery) Treatment E f fec tData by Apti tude Level ............................................................................. 46

6. Group 3 (No In s t ru c t io n a l Treatment) TreatmentE f fe c t Data ...................................................................................................... 48

7. Summary of DAT-SR-T Pretes t by Group ............................................. 50

8. Analysis of Variance f o r Equa l i ty of Spatia l V is u a l i z a t io n Apti tude Between Groups 1, 2,and 3 .................................................................................................................... 50

9. Summary of Orthographic Pretest Scores by Group .................... 51

10. Comparisons of Posttreatment Gains o f Low AptitudeV isu a l ize rs Between In s t ru c t io n a l Treatments ........................... 52

11. Comparisons of Posttreatment Gains of Middle Low Apti tude V isua l ize rs Between Ins t ru c t iona lTreatments ......................................................................................................... 53

12. Comparisons of Posttreatment Gains o f Middle High Apti tude V isu a l i ze rs Between Ins t ru c t iona lTreatment ........................................................................................................... 54

13. Comparisons of Posttreatment Gains of High AptitudeV is u a l iz e rs Between In s t ru c t io n a l Treatments ............................ 55

14. Posttreatment V is u a l i z a t io n Gains Summary ................................. 56

15. Analysis of Variance fo r Gain Score ComparisonsBetween Groups 1, 2, and 3 .................................................................... 56

vi i


L is t o f Tables—Continued

16. Mean Scores by Aptitude Level fo r the Glass BoxTreatment Group .............................................................................................. 57

17. Analysis of Variance fo r Gain Score ComparisonsBetween Aptitude Levels Within Group 1 .......................................... 57

18. Mean Scores by Aptitude Level fo r the Bowl/Hemisphere Treatment Group ............................................................................................. 58

19. Analysis of Variance fo r Gain Score ComparisonsBetween Aptitude Levels Within Group 2 .......................................... 59

v i i i


LIST OF FIGURES

1. The Hinged Glass Box .................................................................................... 25

2. The Bowl/Hemisphere ....................................................................................... 26

ix


CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Ancient cave pa int ings found around the world provide evidence

that our e a r l i e s t human ancestors communicated to themselves, to one

another, to t h e i r d e i t i e s , and to fu ture generations through mural

ar t (Samuels, 1975). Many three-dimensional objects and animals

found in t h e i r l iv e s were drawn in p ic tu re form on rock w a l ls , a

two-dimensional medium. These ea r ly drawings seem to lack depth

because items were drawn as i f viewed head-on. And although objects

are r a r e l y viewed from prec ise ly 90 degrees, they are always per

ce ived t h a t way. In p e r c e p tu a l r e a l i t y a c i r c l e is seen as a

c i r c l e , not an e l l i p s e (McKim, 1980a, 1980b). The modern graphic

equiva lent of seeing th ings in th is head-on way is orthographic

p ro je c t io n , a formal method of drawing t y p i c a l l y used by d ra f te rs

and designers.

The f i r s t recorded use of multiv iew orthographic p ro jec t ion was

by Albrecht Durer, a German pa in ter and engraver, in his 1525 work

th a t defined the proportions of the human body and i t s ind iv idual

parts (Booker, 1963). In his book, Durer drew the human head in

t h i r d angle p ro jec t ion and the fee t in f i r s t angle p ro jec t io n .

These two orthographic pro ject ion s ty les are s t i l l both used today

with North America using t h i r d angle and Europe using f i r s t angle

pro jec t io n .

1


Later in 1795 Gaspard Monge systematized a l l drawing in to a

science ca l led La Geometrie D e scr ip t ive . The glass box, planes of

p ro jec t io n , fo ld l in e s , d i re c t views, and other methods designed to

aid in spa t ia l v i s u a l i z a t io n are simply methods of presenting the

graphic science developed by Monge (B e r to l in e , 1991).

Due to the confusion caused by d i f fe rences in f i r s t and t h i r d

angle p ro jec t io n , in 1883 Joshua Rose wrote a book tha t establ ished

in d i r e c t and d i r e c t revo lu t ion as applied to orthographic pro ject ion

or to the arrangement of views in multiv iew drawing (Booker, 1963).

Yet, to th is day the conceptual iz ing of three-dimensional geometry

and transforming i t to a two-dimensional medium is found to be a

d i f f i c u l t process fo r many students of engineering and technology

(Ross, 1991).

Piaget discovered tha t the a b i l i t y to d is t ingu ish between and

coordinate possible geometric perspectives accurate ly does not ap

pear in chi ldren u n t i l age 9 or 10 (Pu lask i , 1980). For those that

choose to enter many engineering and technical professions, the

a b i l i t y to s p a t i a l l y v is u a l i z e geometry must be fu r th e r developed.

In a study by El wood (1979) , 22 mechanical engineering p ra c t i t io n e r s

were asked to h i e r a r c h i c a l l y rank 70 s k i l l s commonly used in t h e i r

profession. They, as a group, ranked the a b i l i t i e s of shape v is u a l

i z a t io n and mult iv iew representat ion as most important. This rank

ing was also confirmed f o r manufacturing engineers in a study by

Curt is (1983).


3

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of t h is study was to compare the e f fec t iveness of

using one in s t ru c t io n a l method versus another when teaching m u l t i

view orthographic p ro jec t ion to co llege students majoring in engi

neering technology. The pr inc ipa l aim was to judge the r e l a t i v e

worth of two in s t ru c t io n a l methodologies, one t r a d i t i o n a l , the

hinged glass box (see d e f i n i t i o n , Appendix A) present ly in use, and

one n o n t r a d i t io n a l , the bowl/hemispheric method of spa t ia l v i s u a l i

zat ion (see d e f i n i t i o n , Appendix A). A fu r th e r aim of the study was

to determine i f students with and without demonstrated spa t ia l v isu

a l i z a t i o n a b i l i t i e s ( i . e . , visual and nonvisual) show greater visual

development when exposed to one ins t ru c t io n a l method versus another.

The Variables

Therefore , the independent var iab le manipulated in th is study

was the in s t ru c t io n a l method used in the teaching of orthographic

p ro je c t io n . The dependent v a r iab le was, in tu rn , the spa t ia l v isu

a l i z a t i o n development of students as demonstrated through t h e i r

a b i l i t y to m enta l ly solve complex multiv iew orthographic pro ject ion

problems.

The study focused on whether or not the non trad i t iona l method

of sp a t ia l v i s u a l i z a t i o n should be used in place of the t r a d i t i o n a l

method in order to opt imize student learn ing . Information was gath

ered about the c h a ra c te r is t ie s of students in each in s t ru c t io n a l

t rea tm ent , the amount of gain ( i . e . , development) in mult iv iew


orthographic knowledge under each t reatment, and the a d v is a b i l i t y of

spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n a b i l i t y sectioning ( i . e . , p re tes t in g ) for

d i f f e r e n t methodologies.

Educational Leadership

From the very conception of th is research study, a contr ibut ion

to leadership in engineering graphics education was the desired

outcome. Leadership, of course, is not mere power holding; leader

ship serves u l t i m a t e l y in some way to r e l e a s e human p o t e n t i a l

(Burns, 1978). Any in s t ru c t io n a l method tha t is proved to be supe

r i o r to another w i l l unlock human p o ten t ia l i f used. Leaders in a l l

s i tu a t io n s are in te res ted in fresh choices and move to act as agents

of change (Bennis & Nanus, 1985). A new ins t ru c t io n a l method o f fe rs

leaders in engineering graphics education th is type of neoter ic

choice. Meaningful and e f f e c t i v e spat ia l research re la ted to engi

neering graphics is lacking (C. L. M i l l e r & B e r to l in e , 1989). The

published resu l ts of th is study may encourage change and fu r th e r

exper im entat ion .

A p a r t i a l l i s t of ind iv id u a ls involved in engineering graphics

education who w i l l be in terested in the resu l ts of th is study is

shown below.

1. Researchers s p e c ia l i z in g in the study of engineering graph

ics , spa t ia l v i s u a l i z a t i o n , and re la ted f i e l d s .

2. Deans of engineering and technology schools.

3. Chairs of departments in which engineering graphics is

taught .


4. Corporate t r a in i n g d i rec tors considering personnel t ra in in g

in the area of b lu ep r in t reading.

This study w i l l be of special in te re s t to engineering deans and

department chairs who of ten f ind themselves cast in the ro le of

curriculum or in s t ru c t io n a l manager. In th is supervisory ro le they

must help the f a c u l ty f ind ways to more e f f e c t i v e l y d e l iv e r ex is t in g

technical m a te r ia l . The increased in s t ru c t io n a l e f fect iveness is

required to make room with in the curriculum fo r an ever expanding

technological knowledge base.

Each of the aforementioned categories of ind iv idua ls is i n t e r

ested in the e f fec t iveness of the ins t ru c t iona l methods used w ith in

the groups, areas, and programs they lead. E f fect iveness , in th is

context , is defined as accomplishing a goal (Bogue, 1985). And here

the goal is e f f e c t i v e in s t ru c t io n in multiv iew orthographic pro jec

t io n . Ef fect iveness is how leaders measure success (Bennis & Nanus,

1985) .

F i n a l l y , leaders do not th ink short term ( N a i s b i t t , 1984) .

Educational research of a l l types is completed today fo r some fu tu re

b e n e f i t to society in genera l , again making those engaged in th is

a c t i v i t y leaders.

Need fo r the Study

During the era from 1920 to 1960 the typ ica l bachelor's degree

in e n g in e e r in g or t e c h n o lo g y con ta ined 15 semester hours o f

coursework devoted to freehand sketching, mechanical drawing, and

spa t ia l v i s u a l i z a t io n (Raudebaugh, 1988) . Russia's Sputnik I ,


launched October 4 , 1957, sent shock waves throughout the American

educational system. Science and engineering education were seen as

a not so hidden space weapon. In 1959 Russia graduated 86,000

s c ie n t is ts to 36,000 engineers in the United States (Cox, 1962) .

Immediately, co l lege engineering and technology curriculums began to

increase the amount of mathematics and science required while de

emphasizing t r a d i t i o n a l subjects such as drawing and machine shop

(P. W. M i l l e r , 1988).

Today the A ccred i ta t ion Board fo r Engineering and Technology

(ABET) s t ip u la tes tha t a B.S. degree in engineering or technology

must contain a minimum of 124 semester hours (ABET, 1989) . ABET

also spec if ies the c u r r i c u l a r content of accredited programs. As

Raudebaugh (1988) found, engineering design graphics is taught in

and l im i ted to one 3 c r e d i t hour course. Over the past 30 years,

colleges of engineering and technology have been required to teach

spat ia l v is u a l i z a t io n through multiv iew orthographic pro ject ion in

80% less time to la rger numbers of students with poor v is u a l i z a t io n

s k i l l s . Ber to l ine (1990) , in a comment in the Engineering Design

Graphics Journal , wrote:

V is u a l i z a t io n in s t ru c t io n in engineering design graphics is important because v i s u a l i z a t io n is not fo rm a l ly taught at any level of education in the United States. High v is u a l i z a t io n a b i l i t y is the most important p re req u is i te cogn i t ive process tha t a student must have to be successfu l in representing three-dimensional objects on two- dimensional media, (pp. 63-64)

Given the importance of spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n knowledge coupled

with l im i te d in s t ru c t io n a l t ime, new leve ls of in s t ru c t io n a l e f f e c

t iveness must be found, and non trad i t iona l methods must be t r i e d .


Furthermore, Wiley (1990) indicated engineering design graphics

courses are coming under increased scrut iny ; the need to improve

v i s u a l i z a t io n becomes the ch ie f concern as i t is a fundamental s k i l l

tha t d i r e c t l y a f fe c ts many areas of engineering education and manu

fac tu r in g p r o d u c t iv i ty .

In a study conducted by La jo ie (1986 ) , no evidence was found

tha t sp a t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n can be taught to a l l ind iv idua ls and

t ra ns fe r red to a t e s t . Cronbach and Snow (1981) stated the b e l i e f

tha t techniques fo r teaching spat ia l v i s u a l i z a t i o n , such as the

hinged glass box, are simply "mental prostheses" (p. 282) fo r the

student with poor v is u a l i z a t i o n a b i l i t y . In other words, the glass

box does the spa t ia l reasoning for the in d iv id u a l . Yet, the glass

box v i s u a l i z a t i o n technique does not work f o r a l l students. Certa in

underlying psychological c h a ra c te r is t ic s used in spa t ia l v i s u a l i z a

t ion ind ica te tha t the bowl/hemispheric in s t ru c t io n a l method holds

promise fo r use in teaching orthographic p ro je c t io n . These psycho

log ica l c h a ra c te r is t ic s which include, among others, cone of v is ion

and t rack ing are more f u l l y covered in Chapter I I .

Over the next 10 years, engineering design graphics w i l l be

taught to 500,000 fu tu re graduates of engineering schools (Barr &

J u r i c i c , 1991). Another v is u a l i z a t io n technique used e i th e r in

addit ion t o , or in place o f , the glass box may enhance the v i s u a l i

zat ion a b i l i t y , and in turn the p ro d u c t iv i ty , of these graduates.

Also, many students with nonvisual cognit ive learning s ty les may

have been helped to succeed had they been exposed to the bowl/hemi

spheric spa t ia l v i s u a l i z a t i o n technique.


One symptom of a curr iculum problem is when students are per

forming poorly on standardized tes ts ( O l iv e r , 1965). The present

engineering design graphics curriculum is not e f f e c t i v e l y teaching

spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n to a l l students enrol led in such courses.

The glass box method of teaching spat ia l v is u a l i z a t io n has

become a monol ith ic standard of the 20th century. Transformational

leadership , as described by Bennis and Nanus (1985), in the form of

th is study, has shown there may be another way.

The Scope and Limits of the Study

The scope o f the study was l im i ted to ava i lab le engineering

graphics students enro l led during the Winter quarter 1991-1992 at

Ferr is S tate U n iv e rs i ty , Big Rapids, Michigan. These students can

not be considered representa t ive of a l l engineering and technology

students nationwide. There fore , resu l ts of t h is study should not be

r o u t in e ly generalized to other academic se t t ing s . Also, the pos

s ib le e f fe c ts o f f a c i l i t i e s , hour o f the day, and sp e c i f ic technical

major were not researched.


CHAPTER I I

RELEVANT LITERATURE

An eva lua t ive study such as th is is designed to assess the

worth of one in s t ru c t io n a l s t ra tegy over another when ind iv idual

learner cognit ive d i f fe rences are known. Therefore, comparative

studies tha t used two or more in s t ru c t io n a l methods in the teaching

of spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n were reviewed f i r s t . This was fol lowed by

a review of studies tha t examined ind iv idua l cognit ive d i f ferences

as they re la te d to sp a t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n knowledge as demonstrated

by achievement in m ult iv iew orthographic p ro jec t io n . F i n a l l y ,

several underlying psychological constructs th a t a f fe c t the acqu is i

t io n of spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n knowledge were reviewed in l ig h t of

two in s t ru c t io n a l methodologies being used in th is study ( i . e . ,

glass box and bowl) .

Comparative In s t ru c t io n a l Methods

Vander Wall (1991) did a comparative study on the e f fec t iveness

and inf luence of required supplemental video teaching upon v i s u a l i

zat ion p ro f ic ien cy among other i tems. Six random class sections of

col lege level engineering graphics were selected to p a r t ic ip a t e in a

one semester research p r o je c t . Three classes were required to view

30 m in i -v ideo-casset tes which ranged from 9 to 25 minutes in length

each. Each video was a review of course m ater ia l covered in c lass .

9


Three classes were denied access to the videos.

A comparison of the visual p ro f ic ien cy o f the two groups being

studied required a pre- and p o s tv isu a l i z a t io n t e s t . A l l tes ts were

scored in t o t a l points and points were received fo r the number of

l ines successful ly drawn in each of several incomplete orthographic

pro jec t ion problems. Group means were calcu la ted f o r ind iv idua ls

and f o r each class based on the pre- and p o s tv isu a l i z a t io n te s t

scores. £ values and s ign i f icance leve ls were ca lculated fo r a l l

comparisons with no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences being

found between ind iv idua ls or w ith in and among the groups.

Laws (1986) conducted an experiment to te s t the e f fe c ts of

using three-dimensional models in a competency based format fo r

te a c h in g d r a f t i n g in c o l l e g e . Four i n t a c t mechanical drawing

classes (86 students t o t a l ) were the subjects of th is experiment.

Two groups used three-dimensional models to aid them in the v i s u a l i

zat ion required to complete 10 competencies. The other two groups

were not permitted to use models. The t ime required to complete

each competency c o r r e c t l y was recorded. Analysis of variance tests

of s ign i f icance were used. Time to mastery was s i g n i f i c a n t l y f a s t e r

f o r the two groups using three-dimensional models. Thereby, demon

s t r a t in g th a t the use of models aided in the completion of spa t ia l

v is u a l i z a t i o n tasks in t h is study.

Batey (1986) studied the e f fe c ts of t r a in in g s p e c i f i c i t y on

gender d i f fe rences as re la te d to spa t ia l a b i l i t y . Due to a w e l l -

documented male advantage in spat ia l a b i l i t y , Batey hypothesized

th a t females would respond more favorably to sp e c i f ic t r a in in g than


males; th a t is to say, females would make greater r e l a t i v e gains

than males. A t o t a l of 67 adolescents (43 males and 24 females)

were randomly s p l i t into three experimental groups. Group 1 r e

ceived no re levant orthographic t r a in i n g . Group 2 received nonspe

c i f i c t r a in in g in orthographic p ro jec t io n , and Group 3 received

h igh ly s p e c i f ic sp a t ia l t r a in i n g . Each group received 10 hours of

t r a in in g over 2 weeks and was tested fo r gains in spa t ia l a b i l i t y 2

days fo l low ing the t r a in i n g .

S t a t i s t i c a l analysis of the data y ie lded s i g n i f i c a n t main e f

fec ts f o r t r a in i n g s p e c i f i c i t y ( j j < .012) and sex (jd < .038) . In

a dd i t ion , fu r th e r comparison indicated tha t the spec i f ic t ra in in g

condit ion was s i g n i f i c a n t l y more e f f e c t i v e than e i th e r the non

sp e c i f ic t r a in i n g condit ion or the control condit ion. The c e l l

means suggested tha t males benefi ted from both nonspecif ic and spe

c i f i c t r a i n i n g , whereas females only benefi ted from sp e c i f ic t r a i n

ing. This suggests tha t spe c i f ic spa t ia l t r a in in g is the preferred

i n s t ru c t io n a l condit ion f o r a mixed sex population.

Cooperative and ind iv idual learning a c t i v i t i e s were studied by

Lauderbach (1986) f o r t h e i r e f f e c t on performance in v is u a l i z a t io n

of mult iv iew orthographic p ro je c t io n . The group under study was 69

f u l l - and pa r t - t im e undergraduate in d u s t r ia l ar ts education majors

enro l led in three sections of engineering graphics.

A l l students were given the D i f f e r e n t i a l Apti tude Tes t -Spa t ia l

Relat ions (DAT-SR, Bennett, Seashore, & Wesman, 1972) to determine

t h e i r spa t ia l a b i l i t y . Those students scoring above the mean were

i d e n t i f i e d as high v i s u a l i z e r s , and those scoring below the mean


were considered low v is u a l i z e r s . Within in ta c t classes ind iv idua ls

were randomly assigned to five-member work groups and encouraged to

work together , while others were l e f t to work i n d iv id u a l l y . A f te r

15 hours of orthographic p ro jec t ion t r a in i n g , a l l students were

posttested fo r v is u a l i z a t io n a b i l i t y . The resu l ts showed no s i g n i f

icant d i f fe ren c e in pos t tes t scores fo r ind iv idua l learners when

compared to cooperat ive work groups. In add i t ion , there was no

d i f fe ren c e in the high and low visual i zers working alone when com

pared to high and low v is u a l i z e r s found in cooperat ive work groups.

This would ind ica te th a t cooperat ive learning a c t i v i t i e s do not

a f fe c t the v is u a l i z a t io n performance on orthographic project ions

when compared to ind iv idua l work.

Schotta (1984) researched the e f f e c t of selected ins t ru c t ion in

t a c t u a l -v is u a l perception and idea sketching on v isual imagery a b i l

i t y . A t o ta l of 102 in d u s t r ia l ar ts majors enro l led in basic engi

neering graphics were randomly assigned into one of four groups.

Group 1 was administered ta c t u a l -v is u a l i n s t ru c t io n . Group 2 re

ceived ta c t u a l -v is u a l in s t ru c t io n plus idea sketching. Group 3

rece ived only idea sketching, and the four th group received ne i the r

form of spec ia l ized t reatment.

T ac tua l -v isua l in s t ru c t io n involved the touching of several

wooden blocks of various shapes one at a time whi le the blocks were

hidden from view. Later each subject was asked to i d e n t i f y the

block prev ious ly touched from several p ictures of drawn blocks;

there was four d i s t r a c t e r shapes in each set . In idea sketching,

advocated by McKim (1980a, 1980b), the wooden blocks were viewed and


then sketched.

Visual imagery a b i l i t y was measured by the DAT-SR. Hypotheses

were tested at the .05 level of s ign i f icance using a s ingle c l a s s i

f i c a t i o n analysis of var iance. No s ig n i f i c a n t d i f fe renc e in the

visual imagery a b i l i t y was found among any of the four treatment

groups. From t h is study i t was concluded tha t ne i ther t a c t u a l -

visual perception nor idea sketching af fected visual imagery a b i l

i t y .

Groom (1982) wanted to determine the e f f i c i e n c y o f using com

puter graphics as a tool to teach basic engineering design graphics

at the col lege l e v e l . The course included f i v e units of in s t ru c

t io n , one of which was orthographic pro jec t ion .

To te s t his hypothesis, Groom (1982) used two classes of begin

ning graphics students. One group was required to complete a l l

assignments using manual d ra f t in g methods. The second group was

required to do the f i r s t assignment in each un i t using manual d r a f t

ing methods, fol lowed by the use of i n te r a c t i v e computer graphics

fo r a l l remaining assignments.

The treatment was analyzed in terms of three major measure

ments. The f i r s t measurement re la ted to success on f i v e quizzes;

the second on scores on the departmental comprehensive f i n a l ; and

t h i r d , knowledge of computer graphics. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t

d i f fe ren c e between the groups on t h e i r quizzes. However, scores on

the f i n a l exam and computer graphics showed a s ig n i f i c a n t i n t e r

action in favor of the use of computer graphics.


The computer graphics treatment group f in ished assignments much

f a s t e r (an average o f 5 minutes versus 42) than the manual group,

thus al lowing f o r t ime to teach computer graphics.

The e f f e c t s o f c o l o r versus monochrome cueing on d r a f t i n g

v i s u a l i z a t io n were the subject of a study by Gunter (1981). The

research invest igated the impact that the use o f color cueing ( i . e . ,

h in t ing ) may have on the acquis i t ion of v is u a l i z a t io n p r in c ip le s ,

concepts, and a b i l i t i e s in beginning d r a f t in g students.

A t o t a l of 67 seventh-grade students enrol led in a beginning

d r a f t in g class was randomly s p l i t in to two groups. Each student

was given a ser ies of standard ( i . e . , DAT) and researcher developed

tes ts on spa t ia l r e l a t i o n s , orthographic p ro jec t io n , and v i s u a l i z a

t io n . Next, each group was presented a four unit s l id e and tape

presenta t ion . One group received the presentations in black and

white, whi le the experimental group received color presentat ions.

Posttests were given to a l l subjects of the study.

An analysis of the data showed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f fe rence in

v i s u a l i z a t io n a b i l i t y achievement between the control and treatment

groups. Given the resu l ts of th is study, i t would appear th a t color

presentations o f f e r no p a r t i c u la r advantage over black and white

presentat ions when orthographic pro ject ion achievement is the de

si red r e s u l t .

Groves (1970) developed a research study designed to determine

whether background music would have any e f f e c t on learning achieve

ment in u n iv e r s i ty level engineering graphics classes. A second aim

of the study was to see i f the presence of background music would


cause a change in the amount of noise generated by students during

class.

Six sections of freshmen engineering graphics containing a

to ta l of 222 students were studied. Three classes received back

ground music and three did not. Incidents of noise exceeding 60

decibels were recorded in a l l groups. Learning achievement was

measured by pooling jt tes ts on students' grades on d a i l y assign

ments, quizzes, number of layouts completed, and the f i n a l exam.

The with-music groups were qu ie te r during 14 weeks of the 15

week semester. Also they had IQ% fewer incidents of noise per hour.

This was found to be s ig n i f i c a n t at the .20 level of confidence.

The with-music groups also made higher semester grades, which was

again s i g n i f i c a n t at the .20 level of confidence.

The researcher in t h is study concluded tha t background music

caused a measurable improvement in the achievement of students in

engineering graphics classes.

Campbell (1969) compared the t r a d i t i o n a l lecture-demonstrat ion

method of teaching mechanical drawing to programmed in s t ru c t io n

units on selected elements of orthographic p ro je c t io n . This was

done to determine the e f f e c t these two methods would have on the

a b i l i t y of pupils to v is u a l i z e spa t ia l r e la t io n s .

A t o t a l of 188 high school students was involved in the study.

The D i f f e r e n t i a l Apti tude Test o f Space Relat ions (DAT-SR) was given

as a p re tes t and to t e s t fo r equal groups. Ind iv idual classes were

l e f t i n t a c t . One h a l f of the groups received in s t ru c t io n in a t r a

d i t io n a l lecture-demonstrat ion format whi le the remaining groups


also received programmed in s t ru c t io n a l m a te r ia ls .

The DAT-SR was given to a l l subjects/groups as a posttest to

determine t h e i r gains in a b i l i t y to v is u a l i z e spa t ia l r e la t io n s . At

the .05 level of confidence there was no s ig n i f i c a n t d i f fe rence

between the achievement of the control and experimental groups.

Because several teachers were involved in t h is study, the r e

searcher also analyzed the achievement data in l i g h t of the exp er i

ence level of the teacher fo r each c lass . Again, no s ig n i f i c a n t

d i f fe re n c e was found at the .05 le v e l .

Su l l ivan (1964) conducted an experimental study of the e f fe c

t iveness of two methods of teaching orthographic pro ject ion in terms

of re ten t ion and t r a n s f e r . Both methods are forms o f orthographic

pro jec t io n . One method began with mult iv iew orthographic pro ject ion

fol lowed by isometric drawing. The second method began with axonom-

e t r y which was then co r re la ted to mult iv iew p ro jec t io n .

N in e ty -s ix 8th-grade boys with no previous experience in ortho

graphic pro ject ion were the subjects of th is study. They were l e f t

in six in ta c t groups of 16. One h a l f of the groups received in

s t ruct ion beginning with orthographic p ro jec t io n . The remaining

groups received in s t ru c t io n beginning with axonometry.

At the conclusion of the in s t ru c t io n , researcher designed tes ts

f o r both axonometry and orthographic p ro jec t ion were given. Tests

were given to a l l subjects again 1 week and 24 days a f t e r the con

clusion of in s t r u c t io n . In every case, groups exposed to axonometry

f i r s t out-performed those being introduced to orthographic p ro jec

t io n f i r s t .


A log ica l conclusion would be th a t axonometry should be taught

p r io r to orthographic p ro je c t io n , not a f t e r i t .

Summary of Research on In s t ru c t io n a l Methods

From the research i t is c lea r th a t cer ta in in s t ru c t io n a l meth

ods appear to improve the le a rn e r 's a b i l i t y to s p a t i a l l y v is u a l i z e

three dimensional information and apply i t to mult iv iew orthographic

pro jec t io n . Variables tha t were shown to p o s i t iv e ly a f fe c t spat ia l

v is u a l i z a t io n development were the use of models, sp e c i f ic t r a in i n g ,

manual d r a f t in g plus i n t e r a c t i v e computer graphics, background

music, and exposure to axonometry. These seemingly unrelated v a r i a

bles can be l inked to r ig h t brain cognit ive funct ions. When the

r ig h t brain cogn i t ive funct ions are engaged, spa t ia l a b i l i t i e s are

enhanced (Edwards, 1989) . The var iab les of using models, spec i f ic

t r a i n i n g , and i n t e r a c t i v e computer graphics are concrete and charac

t e r iz e d by immediate experience of actual things or events. Teach

ing graphics with axonometry is a h o l i s t i c method of showing objects

on a two dimensional medium. The va r iab le of music t i e s to the

r i g h t b r a i n c o g n i t i v e f u n c t io n s o f nonverbal and nontemporal

thought .

Other var iab les shown through research to have no s ig n i f i c a n t

e f f e c t on spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n development are videos, cooperat ive

lea rn ing , tac tua l use of models, co lor , and teacher experience.


Studies of Ind iv idu a l Cognit ive Dif ference

Baird (1989) t r i e d to c o r r e la te a v is u a l -h a p t ic cognit ive s ty le

and a student's a b i l i t y to solve orthographic pro ject ion problems

using computer aided d r a f t i n g . B r i e f l y s ta ted , a v is u a l -h a p t ic

cognit ive s ty le r e l i e s on a sense of touch to aid in the process of

v i s u a l i z a t io n .

A t o ta l of 136 co l lege students enro l led in 11 sections of

beginning d ra f t in g were the subjects of th is study. The Successive

Perceptions Test I was used to separate the sample population into

two groups, visual and nonvisual. Groups were fu r th e r subdivided

in to those with and without p r io r d ra f t in g experience. Six sections

received t r a in in g using computer assisted d r a f t in g (CAD), while f i v e

sections received t r a in in g using manual to o ls .

Drawing grades and u n i t exams were used as ind ica tors of a b i l

i t y to solve orthographic p ro jec t ion problems. The only co r re la t io n

found was between p r io r d r a f t in g experience and achievement.

One could question whether or not using CAD is more haptic than

using manual d r a f t in g to o ls . Also, the v isual and nonvisual catego

r ie s may not have proper ly iso la ted the v is u a l -h a p t ic cognit ive

s ty le .

La jo ie (1986) compared s t ra te g ie s used by experts and novices

to solve orthographic p ro jec t ion problems. Based upon her f in d in g s ,

she developed a computerized tu to r where students could explore

spat ia l r e la t io n s a c t i v e l y , make p red ic t ions , and te s t t h e i r hypoth

eses.


Lajo ie (1986) found th a t experts and novices scoring 100% on a

pretes t of mul t iv iew orthographic p ro jec t ion problems used a con

s t r u c t iv e s t ra tegy , while those doing poorly on th is task used an

a n a ly t ic s t ra tegy . The orthographic p ro jec t ion tu to r (OPT) provided

a n a ly t ic in d iv idu a ls with t ra n s i t io n rules describing how points ,

l i n e s , and planes shown in two-dimensions appear on a three-dimen

sional o b jec t . The research indicated tha t some ind iv iduals could

be taught the construct ive methodology while others, using the OPT,

simply could not.

K e l ley (1985) completed a study th a t used the Group Embedded

Figures Test and the Hidden Figures Test as predictors of success in

engineering graphics as ind icated by the f i n a l l e t t e r grade in the

course. These te s ts are used to ind ica te f i e l d independence and/or

f l e x i b i l i t y o f closure cogn i t ive s ty les .

A t o t a l of 166 students enrol led in 10 sections of engineering

graphics were the subjects in th is study. This included 133 males

and 33 females a l l of whom took the Group Embedded Figures Test

(GEFT) and the Hidden Figures Test (CF-1) at the beginning of the

semester.

M u l t i v a r ia t e (jl = .321) and b iv a r ia te c o r re la t io n c o e f f ic ie n ts

(GEFT _r = .302 and CF-1 £ = .280) provide an ind ica t ion tha t these

tes ts could be used as v a l id predictors of success in engineering

graphics.

In another study, Dahl (1984 ) , the GEFT was used to ind ica te

f i e l d dependence/independence in students enro l led in four sections

of e n g in e e r in g g r a p h ic s . Because i t is t h e o r i z e d t h a t f i e l d


dependent in d iv idu a ls have d i f f i c u l t y imposing s t ructure on an un

organized perceptual f i e l d , Dahl created a structured learning env i

ronment in an e f f o r t to e l im ina te achievement d i f fe rences in f i e l d

dependent and independent students.

Structure was provided in the form of a computer aided in s t ru c

t io n a l (CAI) package th a t involved d r i l l and p rac t ice in ortho

graphic p ro jec t io n . F ie ld dependent students completing the d r i l l

and prac t ice CAI package showed no s ig n i f i c a n t gains in achievement

over students with the same cognit ive learning s ty le not using CAI.

In another study involving the f i e l d independent/dependent

cognit ive s ty les , Moore (1982) , t r i e d to p red ic t student success in

engineering graphics by employing the Group Embedded Figures Test

(GEFT).

The GEFT was given to 80 students enro l led in four sections of

engineering graphics and i t was found to s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r re la te

with success as measured by the f in a l course grade. The Pearson

product-moment c o r re la t io n c o e f f ic ie n ts found fo r the f i n a l grade

and the GEFT re la t io n s h ip was £ = .485; jd < .001. This study, as

did the Ke l ley (1985) study, indicates th a t the GEFT has v a l i d i t y as

a pred ic tor of success in engineering graphics.

Wilson (1982/1983) made a study of hemispheric dominance and

student performance in several engineering graphics courses. A

v a r i e t y of c h a ra c te r is t ic s were considered in assigning hemispheric

dominance to each subject. A p o r t fo l io of each student's drawings

was rated by three independent consult ing experts and an average of

the three ra t ings was compared to hemispheric dominance. The data


21

showed tha t r ig h t - b r a i n students performed b e t te r than l e f t - b r a i n

students.

Summary of Research on Cognit ive C h arac te r is t ics

From the research i t is evident tha t ind iv idua ls who are r i g h t -

brain dominant, f i e l d independent, and use a construct ive s t ra tegy

in solving orthographic p ro jec t ion problems w i l l do well in the

study o f co l lege level engineering graphics. However, not a l l i n d i

viduals possess or d isp lay a predisposit ion to these s p e c i f ic cogni

t i v e c h a r a c t e r is t i c s . There fore , any planned in s t ru c t io n a l method

which is expected to improve learner performance in spa t ia l v i s u a l i

zat ion tasks must tap in to cer ta in underlying psychological con

structs .

The fo l low ing section is a review o f e x is t in g knowledge about

psychological constructs and cognit ive c h a ra c te r is t ic s which may be

exp lo i ted in the teaching o f mult iv iew orthographic p ro je c t io n .

Psychological Constructs

Several under lying psychological constructs th a t a f fe c t spa t ia l

v is u a l i z a t io n development w i l l be discussed in t h is section. F i r s t ,

the visual system is f i n i t e and possesses temporal resolv ing power

( N e i s s e r , 1 9 6 7 ) . This t im e l i m i t e d r e s o l v i n g power g ives the

teacher of m ul t iv iew or thographic pro ject ion an unknown length of

t ime to demonstrate any spa t ia l v i s u a l i z a t io n technique. Therefore ,

i t would fo l lo w tha t qu ic k ly executed v i s u a l i z a t io n demonstrations

w i l l be fol lowed v i s u a l l y , while lengthy demonstrations may f a l l


outside of the v isua l systems' temporal resolv ing power.

This t ime re la te d visual resolv ing power can be thought o f as

an i n d iv id u a l ' s a t te n t io n span. This visual a t ten t ion can often be

observed in in d iv idu a ls with t h e i r f i x a t i o n of gaze or visual t r a c k

ing (Randhawa & Coffman, 1978) . A v is u a l i z a t io n demonstration tech

nique th a t permits visual t rack ing w i l l hold an in d iv id u a l 's a t te n

t ion in a way th a t a discontinuous demonstration w i l l not. The

human visual a t te n t io n span has also been measured using the e lec

troencephalogram (EEG). The EEG measures c o r t ic a l processes ( i . e . ,

act ion w i th in the cerebral c o r te x ) , which are recorded as alpha

rhythms. These alpha rhythms are shown to be suppressed during

a t te n t io n to visual s t im ul i (Randhawa & Coffman, 1978). This alpha

suppression declines with repeated s t im ula t ion . Therefore, a m u l t i

s t im u l i demonstration w i l l be less e f f e c t i v e ( i . e . , more d i f f i c u l t

to fo l low ) than one employing a s ingle stimulus.

Second, the human visual f i e l d during forward locomotion is a

hemispherical surface around the head. This continuous movement

through space creates corresponding r e t i n a l images tha t are best

described as f lowing according to cer ta in systematic ru les (Haber &

Hershenson, 1973) . These ru les place the human visual system at the

center of r o t a t io n .

F i n a l l y , several studies of hemispheric dominance have v a l i

dated th a t sp a t ia l perception resides on the r ig h t side of the brain

(Edwards, 1989) . Right bra in dominant ind iv idua ls also tend to take

a h o l i s t i c view of the perceptual f i e l d . This h o l i s t i c view of

patterns in two-dimensional space is in keeping with G e s ta l t i c


concepts of a r t i c u l a t i o n and d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n which is in s ig h t , de

f ined as reorgan izat ion of the perceptual f i e l d (Gibson, 1969).

With both r ig h t brain dominance and Gesta lt psychology, the h o l i s t i c

view of visual imagery tends to improve the in d iv id u a l 's a b i l i t y to

solve complex v i s u a l i z a t i o n problems.

Summary of Research on Psychological Constructs

In s t ru c t io n a l methods which c a p i t a l i z e on a human being's l im

i ted a t te n t io n span, natura l system of viewing, and desire to see the

big p ic tu re have been found to enhance an in d iv id u a l 's spa t ia l v isu

a l i z a t i o n a b i l i t y . As prev ious ly discussed (see Summary of Research

on In s t ru c t io n a l Methods), the use of models and exposure to axonom

e t r y improved sp a t ia l v i s u a l i z a t io n a b i l i t y . Both of these tech

niques t i e in to the human's natural system of viewing. I n te r a c t i v e

computer graphics, which was also found to improve one's spa t ia l

v is u a l i z a t io n a b i l i t y tends to command the a t ten t ion of the learner .

Also, as discussed in the section covering research on cogni

t i v e c h a r a c t e r is t i c s , r ig h t brain dominant ind iv idua ls were found to

do well in engineering graphics as were f i e l d independent students.

Both of these c h a ra c t e r is t i e s are re la ted to the G es ta l t ic psycho

log ica l constructs of a r t i c u l a t i o n and d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ( i . e . , r eo r

gan izat ion of the perceptual f i e l d into a h o l i s t i c view).

The Hinged Glass Box

For the past 100 years , the hinged glass box has been used to

teach mult iv iew orthographic p ro je c t io n . With th is method an object


is placed inside o f a rea l or imaginary hinged glass box (see Figure

1 ) . A f t e r the object has been projected onto a l l sides of the glass

box, i t is unfolded in to a s ingle two-dimensional surface showing

each view in r e la t io n s h ip to one another. This method of teaching

mult iv iew orthographic p ro jec t ion can be found in every basic d r a f t

ing te x t and a model of the hinged glass box w i l l be found in most

d r a f t in g lab o ra to r ie s .

Although popular , the hinged glass box method requires e i th e r

very sophis ticated mental ro ta t io n and pro ject ion of the object onto

the sides of the box or i t requires physical movement around the

encased ob je c t . This method of teaching orthographic pro ject ion

does not fo l lo w the underlying psychological constructs which have

been found to f a c i l i t a t e sp a t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n .

The Bowl/Hemisphere

The bowl/hemisphere is a l i t t l e known and unconventional method

of imagery used to teach m ult iv iew orthographic p ro je c t io n . With

th is method, an object is placed in the middle of a bowl or hemi

spheric shape (see Figure 2 ) . The f ro n t view of the object is

viewed by looking d i r e c t l y in to the bowl from above. Adjacent views

are developed by s l id in g the object along the surface of the bowl

u n t i l another side of the object is f u l l y exposed.

Several underlying psychological constructs th a t a f fe c t spa t ia l

v i s u a l i z a t io n development seem to ind ica te that the bowl/hemisphere

in s t ru c t io n a l method of teaching mult iv iew orthographic pro ject ion

w i l l be super ior to tha t o f the hinged glass box method. The bowl


25

THE GLASS BOX

FRONT VIEW

THE GLASS BOX UNFOLDED

Figure 1. The Hinged Glass Box.


BOW L/HEMISPHERE IMAGERY

FRONT VIEW

ORTHOGRAPHIC VIEWS DEVELOPED

Figure 2. The Bowl/Hemisphere.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission

technique can be executed in less time than the glass box because

there are fewer steps in the bowl method ( i . e . , only the object is

moved in the bowl method; whereas, the object must be projected and

the glass box unfolded in the t r a d i t i o n a l method). This means tha t

some in d iv idu a ls who were unable to fo l lo w the glass box method due

to loss of a t te n t io n may be able to stay with the shorter bowl dem

o ns tra t io n .

The bowl method also focuses a t ten t ion on an object placed in

the center of a hemisphere and th is method, un l ike the glass box,

permits the object to be tracked as adjacent views are developed.

The bowl method, which places a hemisphere in f ro n t of the

l e a rn e r , is in keeping with the human centered visual system. The

glass box method runs counter to a l i f e t im e of v i s u a l i z a t i o n , while

the bowl method mirrors the natural system. The bowl method of

spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n permits a s ingular and h o l i s t i c viewing of a

m ult iv iew orthographic p ro jec t io n ; the glass box method does not.

The bowl/hemisphere method of teaching mult iv iew orthographic pro

j e c t io n provides the graphics educator and student a s p e c i f ic and

p o s i t iv e re la t io n s h ip to each of the underlying psychological con

s t ruc ts which have been found to f a c i l i t a t e spa t ia l v i s u a l i z a t i o n .

Hypotheses

As prev ious ly stated in Chapter I , the purpose of t h is study

was to compare the e f fec t iveness of one in s t ru c t io n a l method o f

teaching mult iv iew orthographic pro ject ion versus another ( i . e . , the

glass box vs . the b o w l /h e m is p h e re ) . The r e v ie w o f r e l a t e d


psychological l i t e r a t u r e ind icated tha t bowl/hemisphere imagery may

be super ior to glass box imagery when teaching spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n

in the form of m ult iv iew orthographic p ro jec t io n . Therefore, the

fo l low ing primary research hypotheses (numbers 1-4) were developed,

along subject v i s u a l i z a t i o n a b i l i t y l in e s , and tested.

The secondary research hypotheses (numbers 5-7) were also de

veloped and tested. Hypothesis 5 served to compare spa t ia l v i s u a l i

zat ion learning gains achieved by the control group, without benef i t

of an in s t ru c t io n a l t reatment ( i . e . , the p re te s t /p o s t te s t e f f e c t ) ,

with gains achieved by e i th e r of the two ins t ru c t io n a l treatment

groups. Hypotheses 6 and 7 were created to compare v is u a l i z a t io n

achievement gains by apt i tude level w ith in the two ins t ru c t iona l

t reatment groups. For a l l seven hypotheses, a b i l i t y p a r t i t io n in g

allowed fo r an examination of posttreatment gains in ind iv idua ls at

the extremes of the v is u a l i z a t io n a b i l i t y spectrum.

Primary Research Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1 : The v is u a l i z a t io n achievement gain of low v isu

al izers in treatment Group 1 (the glass box) w i l l not be as high as

the achievement gain of low v is u a l i z e r s in treatment Group 2 ( the

bowl) .

Hypothesis 2 : The v is u a l i z a t io n achievement gain of middle low

v is u a l i z e r s in t reatment Group 1 (the glass box) w i l l not be as high

as the achievement gain of middle low v is u a l i z e r s in treatment Group

2 ( the bowl) .


Hypothesis 3 : The v is u a l i z a t io n achievement gain of middle

high v is u a l i z e r s in t reatment Group 1 ( the glass box) w i l l not be as

high as the achievement gain of middle high v is u a l i z e r s in treatment

Group 2 ( the bowl) .

Hypothesis 4 : The v i s u a l i z a t i o n achievement ga in o f high

v is u a l i z e r s in treatment Group 1 (the glass box) w i l l not be as high

as the achievement gain of high v is u a l i z e r s in treatment Group 2

( the bowl) .

Secondary Research Hypotheses

Hypothesis 5: The average spa t ia l v i s u a l i z a t io n achievement

gain of Group 3 w i l l not be as high as the gains recorded by e i th e r

Groups 1 or 2 as measured by the posttest .

Hypothesis 6 : The posttreatment gain scores of the four a p t i

tude leve ls w ith in Group 1 (the hinged glass box) w i l l be equal.

Hypothesis 7; The posttreatment gain scores of the four a p t i

tude leve ls w ith in Group 2 ( the bowl/hemisphere) w i l l be equal.

A Final Comment

This l i t e r a t u r e review demonstrates th a t sp a t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n

and orthographic p r in c ip le s have been the concern of researchers fo r

some t ime. Much is known; however, other methods of teaching v isu

a l i z a t i o n must be researched. The inqu iry described in research

study represents a con tr ibu t ion to known in s t ru c t io n a l methodologies

and the l i t e r a t u r e .


CHAPTER I I I

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The fo l low ing research procedures were used to evaluate student

sp a t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n a b i l i t y as i t re la ted to multiv iew ortho

graphic p ro jec t ion achievement in basic engineering graphics at

Ferr is State U n iv e rs i ty , Big Rapids, Michigan, through the tes t ing

of the seven research hypotheses out l ined in Chapter I I .

Population

The population from which subjects were selected fo r th is study

was made up of freshmen and sophomores majoring in technical f i e l d s

and enro l led at F e r r is S tate Un ivers i ty during the Winter quarter of

1991/1992. Ninety-two predominantly male volunteers enro l led in

basic engineering graphics were the subjects of th is study.

Research Design

The design of t h is study provided a framework fo r evaluation

and gave v a l i d i t y to the f ind ings . Ninety-two subjects were re

c ru i te d from a t o t a l of 95 students enro l led in two basic engineer

ing graphics courses. To insure consistency and fa irness in the

subject se lect ion procedure, a formal recrui tment s c r ip t was read to

the students in each graphics course (see Appendix B). Due to the

r e q u i r e d n a t u r e o f th ese g raph ics courses f o r many s tu d e n ts ,

30


p a r t ic ip a t io n in the study was on a voluntary basis. Assurances

about the vo luntary nature of the study and the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of

a l l p a r t ic ip a n ts were made in a consent form (Appendix C). Each

volunteer subject read, signed, and dated a separate consent form

ind ic a t ing t h e i r w i l l ingness to p a r t ic ip a te in the study. Those

students not wishing to p a r t i c ip a t e in the study were asked to sign

a made-up name or simply leave the consent form blank.

Pretest fo r Spat ia l V is u a l i z a t io n A b i l i t y

A l l subjects involved in the study were f i r s t given the D i f f e r

e n t ia l Aptitude Tes t -S pa t ia l Relations-Form T (DAT-SR-T, Bennett et

a l . , 1972) to determine t h e i r current spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n a b i l i t y .

In other studies of th is type by Lauderbach in 1986, Gunter in 1981,

and Campbell in 1969, the DAT-SR was used fo r the same purpose. The

DAT-SR-T is a 60- i tem te s t published by the Psychological Corpora

t io n . Ins t ru c t ion f o r administrat ion o f the 25 minute DAT-SR-T and

sample items are shown in Appendix D.

The DAT-SR-T has a r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c ie n t of .95 and .94 fo r

12th grade boys and g i r l s , resp e c t ive ly (Bennett, Seashore, & Wes-

man, 1974) . For 11th grade students tak ing d r a f t in g , the DAT-SR-T

has a p re d ic t iv e v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c ie n t of .5 1 - .5 7 to the course grade

(Bennett et a l . , 1974) . The DAT-SR-T has also been cor re la ted to

the f u l l range of subjects tested by the Iowa Tests of Educational

Development, the Metropoli tan Achievement, the Scholast ic Aptitude

Test, and the American College Testing Program's ACT (Bennett et

a l . , 1 9 7 4 ) . To d a t e , no a d u l t v a l i d i t y , r e l i a b i l i t y , or norm


32

informat ion is a v a i la b le from the Psychological Corporation on the

DAT-SR-T. However, the l i t e r a t u r e gives broad and wide ranging

support fo r the use of t h is instrument in spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n

research on col lege age populat ions.

From the resu l ts of the scores a t ta ined on the DAT-SR-T, a

frequency d is t r ib u t io n was created fo r one large class of 62 sub

je c ts including cumulative frequencies and cumulative percentages

(see Table 1 ) . The cumulative percentages were used to d iv ide th is

group of subjects in to q u a r t i l e s . Subjects found in these q u a r t i le s

were categorized as: low v is u a l i z e r s , middle low v is u a l i z e r s , mid

dle high v is u a l i z e r s , or high v is u a l i z e r s . A s t r a t i f i e d random

sampling technique was used to s p l i t the class of 62 subjects in to

two equal treatment groups of 31, labeled Groups 1 and 2 (see Table

2 ).

Table 1

Frequency D is t r ib u t io n of the DAT-SR-T Scores

Cum. Spat ia l visualArray Freq. Freq. % C% a b i l i t y level

17 1 1 1.6 1.6 Low

18 1 2 1.6 3.2 Low

21 2 4 3.2 6.5 Low

22 2 6 3.2 9.7 Low

23 1 7 1.6 11.3 Low

24 1 8 1.6 12.9 Low

32 1 9 1 .6 14.5 Low


33

Table 1— Continued

Array Freq.Cum.Freq. % C%

Spatia l visual a b i l i t y level

34 3 12 4 .8 19.4 Low

35 3 15 4 .8 24.2 Low

36 2 17 3.2 27.4 Middle low

37 1 18 1.6 29.0 Middle low

38 5 23 8.1 37.1 Middle low

39 1 24 1.6 38.7 Middle low

40 5 29 8.1 46 .8 Middle low

41 3 32 4 .8 51.6 Middle high

42 1 33 1.6 53.2 Middle high

43 1 34 1.6 54.8 Middle high

44 6 40 9.7 64.5 Middle high

45 4 44 6.5 71.0 Middle high

46 2 46 3 .2 74.2 Middle high

47 1 47 1.6 75.8 High

48 2 49 3 .2 79.0 High

49 1 50 1.6 80.6 High

50 2 52 3.2 83 .9 High

51 5 57 8.1 92.0 High

52 1 58 1.6 93.6 High

55 2 60 3.2 96.8 High

57 2 62 3 .2 100.0 High


34

Table 2

DAT-SR-T Raw Score Test Results by Group

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3Subject DAT-SR-T DAT-SR-T DAT-SR-T

score score score

1 17

2 21

3 22

4 23

5 32

6 34

7 34

8 35

9 36

10 37

11 38

12 38

13 39

14 40

15 40

16 41

17 42

18 44

19 44

20 44

21 45

18 19

21 22

22 24

24 34

34 35

35 36

35 37

36 37

38 38

38 38

38 38

40 39

40 39

40 39

41 39

41 40

43 40

44 40

44 40

44 42

45 44


35

Table 2—Continued

SubjectGroup 1 DAT-SR-T

score

Group 2 DAT-SR-T

score

Group 3 DAT-SR-T

score

22 45 45 46

23 46 46 46

24 47 48 47

25 48 49 48

26 50 50 48

27 51 51 49

28 51 51 52

29 51 55 55

30 52 55 57

31 57 57 —

Totals 1,244 1,268 1,208

Note . Group 1 mean = 40 .13; = 9 .4 ; u = 31. Group 2 mean = 40.90;s = 9 .8 ; ji = 31. Group 3 mean = 40.27; _s = 8 .6 ; n̂ = 30.

Another in ta c t class of 30 subjects was selected to be the

control group and subsequently received no in s t ru c t io n a l treatment

during the t ime of th is study. The DAT-SR-T was also given to th is

group and the res u l ta n t scores were l a t e r used to insure the s t a t i s

t i c a l e q u a l i t y of sp a t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n a b i l i t y among a l l three

groups (see Table 2 and Chapter IV , r e s p e c t iv e ly ) .


Pretest f o r Orthographic Project ion Knowledge

The Western Michigan Un ive rs i ty Diagnostic/Achievement Quiz,

Part 3, Spatia l Perception (Nowak, Wal ter , Vander Ark, & Henry,

1991) was used as a second p re tes t . This p re tes t is a 12- i tem i n

strument tha t s p e c i f i c a l l y tests spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n as demon

s tra ted through orthographic pro jec t ion . This instrument has been

given to several thousand students and the items are s t a t i s t i c a l l y

arranged from the simple to complex. Ins t ruc t ions fo r administra

t io n of th is te s t and sample items are shown in Appendix E. The

items contained in the t e s t were developed and reviewed by subject

matter experts , thereby insuring the content v a l i d i t y of th is in

strument. Also, the level of complexity found in the te s t was suf

f i c i e n t to create a necessary and useful spread in demonstrated

learner development.

Ind iv idual achievement on th is second pretest was used as a

baseline from which posttreatment gains were measured (see Table 3 ) .

Also, fo r purposes o f fu tu re reference in re la te d research, a Pear

son r. c o r re la t io n c o e f f i c ie n t was calculated fo r the two pretests

using the raw score formula and the data tables found in Appendix F.

A moderate po s i t iv e c o r r e la t io n of .50 was found between the pre

tes ts and is discussed fu r th e r in Chapter IV.

Design of Treatment

Following a l l p re te s t in g , the ins t ru c t io n a l methodology t r e a t

ment ( i . e . , the independent var iab le ) was administered separate ly to


37

Table 3

Comparison Table of DAT-SR-T Pretest Scores and Orthographic Spat ia l Perception Pretest Scores

by Ind iv idu a l Subject and Group

DAT-SR-T pre tes t score/orthographic p re tes t score

Subject Group I Group 2 Group 3

1 17/3 18/3 19/0

2 21/3 21/5 22/3

3 22/1 22/0 24/4

4 23/5 24/3 34/2

5 32/2 34/2 35/2

6 34/4 35/1 36/3

7 34/4 35/3 37/7

8 35/1 36/5 37/3

9 36/2 38/2 38/4

10 37/5 38/4 38/2

11 38/3 38/3 38/7

12 38/4 40/3 39/6

13 39/3 40/6 39/3

14 40/3 40/3 39/4

15 40/2 41/6 39/3

16 41/3 41/5 40/2

17 42/8 43/1 40/3

18 44/3 44/3 40/4

19 44/5 44/5 40/2


38

Table 3--Continued

DAT-SR-T pretest score /orthographic pre tes t score

Subject Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

20 44/6 44/4 42/3

21 45/8 45/5 44/5

22 45/8 45/5 46/5

23 46/5 46/6 46/4

24 47/5 48/3 47/5

25 48/7 49/3 48/3

26 50/10 50/6 48/3

27 51/4 51/6 49/4

28 51/4 51/5 52/8

29 51/4 55/4 55/4

30 52/5 55/8 57/6

31 57/9 57/7 —

Note. DAT-SR-T pre tes t has 60 items and the Perception pre tes t has 12 items.

Orthographic Spat ia l

the s p l i t Groups 1 and 2 during 2 hours each of spe c i f ic and formal

le c tu re . This 2-hour t ime frame is spec if ied on the Fe r r is State

U n iv e rs i ty 's o f f i c i a l course o u t l in e as being required f o r the in

t roduct ion and use of sp a t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n imaging.

Group 1 received in s t ru c t io n in orthographic p r in c ip le s using

the hinged glass box imagery. Group 2 received in s t ru c t io n in o r

thographic p r in c ip le s using the bowl/hemisphere imagery. Examples,


39

t ime, and topics covered during the in s t ru c t io n a l treatment were

id e n t ic a l except fo r the spa t ia l ro ta t io n imagery used. Group 3,

the control group, received no ins t ru c t ion in orthographic p r i n c i

ples during the t ime of t h is study.

The Posttest

Following the in s t ru c t io n a l treatment given to Groups 1 and 2

as well as the absence of an ins t ru c t iona l treatment fo r Group 3,

a l l subjects were given a pos t tes t . The posttest was again the 12-

item spa t ia l perception instrument previously administered as the

second pre tes t (see Appendix E) . Scores on the posttest were used

to record gains in m ult iv iew orthographic pro ject ion type spa t ia l

v is u a l i z a t io n development ( i . e . , the dependent v a r iab le ) in in d iv id

uals , categor ies , and groups. These data are displayed by group in

Chapter IV.

Insuring Subject C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y

To insure the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of the subjects who p a r t ic ip a te d

in t h i s r e s e a rc h s tu d y , th e f o l l o w i n g procedure was f o l l o w e d :

F i r s t , a master f i l e was created l i s t i n g those volunteers who signed

consent forms by c lass . These were made in alphabetical order.

Second, on the reverse s ide , in the lower r ig h t hand corner of

each of the three d i f f e r e n t blank tes t answer sheets, a coded number

was w r i t t e n . This number was a 5 - d i g i t number such as 60427 or

31562. Reading l e f t to r i g h t , d ig i ts 1, 3, and 5 are random numbers

having no meaning. D ig i ts 2 and 4 ind ica te a posit ion of a name on


the a lphabet ica l master l i s t ( i . e . , 02 = 2nd posit ion from the top,

and 16 = 16th pos it ion from the to p ) . These numbers ( i . e . , d ig i t s

1, 3, and 5) were d i f f e r e n t fo r the p re tes t and posttest answer

sheets.

T h i rd , to fu r th e r mask any possible detect ion of a p a t te rn , the

o r ig in a l master alpha l i s t s were randomized two times crea t ing two

new ordered l i s t s of names fo r use in passing out the te s t booklets

and coded blank answer sheets.

Both master a l p h a b e t i c a l name l i s t s and a l l scored answer

sheets were kept in separate locat ions under lock and key. Once the

l a s t of three tes ts had been given, a new master l i s t l in k in g pre

te s t and posttest scores was created without any reference to the

ind iv idua l p a r t ic ip a n ts . And the o r ig in a l master a lphabetical name

l i s t s were destroyed, thereby insur ing t o t a l subject c o n f i d e n t ia l

i t y .

Threats to V a l i d i t y

Whenever a p re tes t is given, a c e r ta in amount of learning takes

place simply through exposure to the te s t (Krathwohl, 1988). This

kind of p re tes t treatment in te ra c t io n was accounted fo r in th is

study by the use of a control group.

There is also a p o s s i b i l i t y tha t subjects from each of the two

in s t ru c t io n a l treatment groups conversed about the method by which

they were being taught orthographic p r in c ip le s . I f th is kind of

in te ra c t io n was lengthy and widespread, contamination of the t r e a t

ment e f f e c t could o c c u r . Due to the sho rt d u r a t i o n between


pretes t ing and post tes t ing and the complexity of the ins t ru c t iona l

t reatment the p r o b a b i l i t y of contamination seems remote.

To e l im ina te concerns about spat ia l v is u a l i z a t io n development

taking place through e i t h e r psychomotor or t ime on task learn ing, no

laboratory assignments were made p r io r to the administering of the

posttes t .

An Ethical Concern

Group 2 received a non trad i t iona l approach to the v is u a l i z a t io n

process needed to understand multiv iew orthographic pro jec t ion .

Because the treatment given to th is group is not widely known or

accepted, Group 2 was also instructed in the glass box v is u a l i z a t io n

tec h n iq u e f o l l o w i n g the p o s t t e s t . And Group 1 was shown the

bowl/hemispheric v i s u a l i z a t i o n technique.

Data Analysis

A complete record o f raw data generated through pre- and post

t e s t in g was made by sub jec t , group, and spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n a b i l

i t y level (see Appendix H) . Appendix H was created v ia micro

computer using the spreadsheet software package PC-CALC 3 .0 (Button,

1985) . This computer based record was then v e r i f i e d fo r accuracy

against o r ig in a l records. The microcomputer data were then t ra ns

la ted in to standard ASCII code f o r loading into a f i l e on the Ferr is

State U n iv e rs i ty (Big Rapids, Michigan) mainframe computer. The

s t a t i s t i c a l package f o r the social sciences (SPSS, I n c . , 1990) r e

lease 4 .1 was then used f o r formal data ana lys is . However, p r io r to


analysis the data loaded in to SPSS were again checked fo r accuracy

against both the microcomputer data (Appendix H) and o r ig in a l re

cords.

Formal analysis began with a f a c i l i t a t i n g check fo r e q u a l i ty of

spat ia l v i s u a l i z a t io n a b i l i t y between a l l three groups p a r t ic ip a t in g

in the study using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). A _t tes t

f o r independent sample means was used to te s t each of the four p r i

mary research hypotheses. Measures on the dependent v a r ia b le , spa

t i a l v is u a l i z a t io n development, were t rea ted as in te rv a l data. The

average spa t ia l v i s u a l i z a t i o n achievement gain of Groups 1, 2, and 3

(Hypothesis 5) was analyzed using one-way ANOVA. F i n a l l y , post

treatment gain scores fo r the four apt i tude leve ls w ith in Groups 1

and 2 (Hypotheses 6 and 7) were analyzed using one-way ANOVA. A l l

hypotheses were tested at the .05 level of s ign i f icanc e .


CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

This study was designed to explore the e f fect iveness of one

in s t ru c t io n a l method versus another as i t re la te d to spa t ia l v is u a l

iz a t io n and the teaching of mul t iv iew orthographic p ro je c t io n . In

th is chapter the f ind ings o f the research study are reported. These

f ind ings are based upon data co l lec ted through the research design

and methodology described in Chapter I I I .

Treatment e f f e c t data recorded as a re s u l t o f posttreatment

gains ( i . e . , the dependent v a r ia b le ) fo r Groups 1 (box) , 2 (bowl) ,

and 3 (c o n t ro l ) are found in Tables 4, 5, and 6, re sp e c t ive ly . Note

tha t subjects fo r which no posttest score was received have been

omitted from the data tab les at th is po in t .

Table 4

Group 1 (Hinged Glass Box Imagery) Treatment E f fec t Data by Aptitude Level

12- i tem 12- i tem V is u a l iz a t io nSubject pre tes t posttest Gain a b i l i t y

score score category

1 - - - -

2 3 3 0 Low

3 1 1 0 Low

4 5 4 -1 Low

43


44

Table 4--Continued

Subject1 2 - item pretest

score

1 2 - item posttest

scoreGain

V is u a l iz a t io n a b i1i t y category

5 2 5 3 Low

6 4 6 2 Low

7 4 5 1 Low

8 1 4 3 Low

R = 7 20 28 8 = Subtotal

2.85 Avg. 4 .00 Avg. 1.14 = Mean gain

9 2 5 3 Middle low

10 5 2 -3 Middle low

11 3 3 0 Middle low

12 4 2 -2 Middle low

13 3 6 3 Middle low

14 3 3 0 Middle low

15 2 7 5 Middle low

n = 7 22 28 6 = Subtotal

3.14 Avg. 4 .00 Avg. 0.85 = Mean gain

16 3 5 2 Middle high





45

Table 4--Continued

Subject1 2 - item pre tes t

score

1 2 - item posttest

scoreGain

V isua l i zation a b i l i t y category

20 6 4 -2 Middle high




_n = 8 46 53 7 = Subtotal

5.75 Avg. 6.23 Avg. 0.875 = Mean gain

24 5 6 1 High

25 7 9 2 High

26 10 10 0 High

27 4 5 1 High

28 4 6 2 High

29 4 6 2 High

30 5 5 0 High

31 9 10 1 High00II=

1 48 57 9 = Subtotal

6.00 Avg. 7.13 Avg. 1.125 = Mean gain

n = 30 Total

Totals 136 166 30

Means 4.53 5.53 1.00

Std. dev. 2.30 2.40 1.78


46

Table 5

Group 2 (Bowl/Hemisphere Imagery) Treatment Ef fec t Data by Aptitude Level

Subject12- itempretest

score

1 2 - item posttest

scoreGain

V is u a l i z a t io n a b i l i t y category

1 3 5 2 Low

2 5 6 1 Low

3 0 2 2 Low

4 3 4 1 Low

5 2 4 2 Low

6 1 2 1 Low

7 3 5 2 Low

_n = 7 17 28 11 = Subtotal

2.42 Avg. 4 .00 Avg. 1.57 = Mean gain

8 5 4 -1 Middle low

9 2 4 2 Middle low

10 - - - -

11 3 4 1 Middle low

12 3 3 0 Middle low

13 6 6 0 Middle low

14 3 7 4 Middle low

£ = 6 22 28 6 = Subtotal

3.66 Avg. 4 .66 Avg. 1.00 = Mean gain






47

Table 5—Continued

Subject1 2 - item pretes t

score

1 2 - item posttest

scoreGain

V is u a l i z a t io na b i l i t ycategory



21 - - - -



n = 8 35 37 2 = Subtotal

4 .38 Avg. 4.63 Avg. 0.25 = Mean gain

24 3 4 1 High

25 3 2 -1 High

26 6 5 -1 High

27 6 10 4 High

28 5 7 2 High

29 4 5 1 High

30 8 6 -2 High

31 7 9 2 High

n. = 8 42 48 6 = Subtotal

5.25 Avg. 6.00 Avg. 0.75 = Mean gain

_n = 29 Total

Totals = 116 141 25

Means = 4.00 4.86 0.86

Std. dev. = 1.91 1.95 1.86


48

Table 6

Group 3 (No Ins t ru c t io n a l Treatment) Treatment E f fec t Data

1 2 - item 1 2 - itemSubject p re tes t posttest Gain

score score

1 0 4 4

2 3 2 -1

3 4 2 -2

4

5 2 4 2

6 3 6 3

7 7 5 -2

8 3 6 3

9 4 2 -2

10 2 3 1

11 7 5 - 2

12 6 4 -2

13 3 4 1

14 4 5 1

15 3 3 0

16 2 6 4

17 3 4 1

18 4 2 -2

19

20 3 5 2


49

Table 6--Continued

Subject1 2 - item pre tes t

score

1 2 - item posttest

scoreGain

21 5 2 -3

22 - - -

23 4 4 0

24 5 7 2

25 3 3 0

26 3 6 3

27 4 2 -2

28 8 10 2

29 4 5 1

30 6 6 0

jn = 27 Totals = 105 117 12

Means = 3.89 4.33 0.44

Std. dev. = 1.76 1.90 2.08

A nat ional norm mean score of 34.3 is reported by the Psycho-

log ica l Corporation f o r male 12th graders (N̂ = >5,000) (Bennett et

a l . , 1974) . Group means in the range of 40-41 f o r col lege age engi

neering and technology students seems p la u s ib le . Maturation and

s p e c i f ic in te re s ts found in the population being researched may

account fo r the d i f fe renc es in means. No adult norms e x i s t . To

t e s t f o r e q u a l i t y of sp a t ia l v i s u a l i z a t io n apt i tude between groups,


the data reported in Table 7 were analyzed using one-way ANOVA. The

resu l ts of t h is t e s t are reported in Table 8.

Table 7

Summary of DAT-SR-T Pretes t by Group

Group aMeanscore SD

1 31 40.13 9.8

2 31 40.90 9.4

3 30 40.26 8.6

Table 8

.Analysis of Variance fo r Equa l i ty o f Spat ia l V is u a l i z a t io n Apti tude Between

Groups 1, 2, and 3

Source dfSum of squares

Meansquares

Fr a t io

Fprob.

Betweengroups 2 10.5485 5.2742 .0597 .9421

The one-way ANOVA f ind ings (_F p r o b a b i l i t y = .9421) indicated

tha t the groups were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t at the .05 le v e l .

The e q u a l i t y of spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n apt i tude between groups f a c i l

i t a t e d the balance of the study.

A second pre tes t was administered to each group to evaluate i t s

present knowledge of mul t iv iew orthographic p ro jec t io n . This was a


1 2 - i t e m t e s t taken from the Western M ich igan U n i v e r s i t y D ia g

nostic/Achievement Quiz (Nowak et a l . , 1991) (see Appendix E) . A

summary of the re s u l ts of th is pretest is shown in Table 9.

Table 9

Summary o f Orthographic Pretest Scores by Group

Group aMeanscore SD

1 30 4.53 2.30

2 29 4.00 1.91

3 27 3.89 1.76

Information provided by the Western Michigan Un ive rs i ty Testing

and Evaluation Service (Nowak, 1991) indicated that a mean score of

4 .2 was found in a random sampling of 100 f i r s t and second year

col lege males enro l led in technical programs. Again, mean scores

found in the groups l i s t e d in Table 9 are p lau s ib le . These scores

provided a baseline f o r the measurement of posttreatment gains.

For information purposes a Pearson _r c o r re la t io n c o e f f i c ie n t

of .50 was ca lcu la ted between th is orthographic pretest and the DAT-

SR-T using data found in Appendix F. This is a moderate p o s i t iv e

c o r r e l a t i o n t h a t cou ld be expected due to th e use of s p a t i a l

v i s u a l i z a t io n in both t e s t s . The lack of a higher c o r r e la t io n is

discussed in Chapter V.


52


Hypothesis 1 stated th a t the v is u a l i z a t io n achievement gain of

low v i s u a l i z e r s in t reatment Group 1 ( the glass box) w i l l not be as

high as the achievement gain of low v is u a l i z e r s in treatment Group 2

( the bowl/hemisphere). The average gain fo r each of these groups

was ca lcu la ted by subtract ing orthographic pretest scores from o r

thographic posttest scores. These mean gains were then compared in

a _t t e s t for independent means (see Table 10) .

The _t t e s t y ie lded a ca lcu la ted t_ value of - . 6 8 with 12 degrees

of freedom. This was not s ig n i f i c a n t at the .05 alpha level as the

c r i t i c a l value fo r a o n e - ta i le d te s t at the .05 level is -1 .7 82 .

Th er e f o r e , the d i r e c t io n a l Hypothesis 1 cannot be supported. How

ever, the s t a t i s t i c a l information indicates the two in s t ru c t io n a l

Table 10

Comparisons of Posttreatment Gains of Low Aptitude Visua l ize rs Between Ins t ru c t io n a l Treatments

GroupMeangain

Calc. SD t value df

C r i t i c a l val ue of jt

1 7

2 7

1.1429

1.5714

1.574- .6 8

0.53512 -1 .782

methods used are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . These f ind ings are

fu r th e r discussed in Chapter V.


middle low v is u a l i z e r s in treatment Group 1 ( the glass box) w i l l not


be as high as the achievement gain of middle low v is u a l i z e r s in

treatment Group 2 ( the bowl/hemisphere). The average gain fo r each

of these groups was ca lcu la ted by subtract ing orthographic pretest

scores from orthographic posttest scores. These mean gains were

then compared in a t_ te s t f o r independent means (see Table 11) .

Table 11

Comparisons of Posttreatment Gains of Middle Low Aptitude V isua l ize rs Between Ins t ru c t iona l Treatments

Group NMeangain SD

Calc._t value df

C r i t i c a l value o f _t

1 7 0.8571 2.911- .1 1 11 -1 .796

2 6 1.0000 1.789

The jt t e s t y ie lded a ca lcu la ted jt value of - . 1 1 with 11 degrees


c r i t i c a l value fo r a o n e - ta i le d te s t at the .05 level is -1 .7 96 .

Therefore, the d i re c t io n a l Hypothesis 2 cannot be supported. How

ever , the s t a t i s t i c a l informat ion indicates the two in s t ru c t io n a l




middle high v is u a l i z e r s in treatment Group 1 ( the glass box) w i l l

not be as high as the achievement gain of middle high v is u a l i z e r s in

t reatment Group 2 ( the bowl/hemisphere). The average gain f o r each

of these groups was ca lcu la ted by subtract ing orthographic p re tes t


54

scores from orthographic posttest scores. These mean gains were

then compared in a _t t e s t fo r independent means (see Table 12) .

Table 12

Comparisons of Posttreatment Gains of Middle High Apti tude V is u a l iz e rs Between In s t ru c t io n a l Treatments

Group NMeangain SD

Calc, t value df

C r i t i c a l value of t

1 8 0.8750 1.727.57 14 1.761

2 8 0.2500 2.605

The _t t e s t y ie lded a ca lcu la ted t_ value of .57 with 14 degrees

of freedom. This was not s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 alpha level as the

c r i t i c a l value fo r a o n e - t a i le d te s t at the .05 level is 1.761.

Therefore, the d i r e c t io n a l Hypothesis 3 cannot be supported. How

ever , the s t a t i s t i c a l informat ion ind icates the two in s t ru c t io n a l



Hypothesis 4 stated th a t the v i s u a l i z a t io n achievement gain of

high v i s u a l i z e r s in treatment Group 1 ( the glass box) w i l l not be as

high as the achievement gain of high v is u a l i z e r s in treatment Group

2 ( the bowl/hemisphere). The average gain f o r each of these groups

was ca lcu la ted by subtract ing orthographic pre tes t scores from or

thographic posttest scores. These mean gains were then compared in

a t t e s t for independent means (see Table 13) .


55

Table 13

Comparisons o f Posttreatment Gains o f High Aptitude V isu a l ize rs Between Ins t ru c t iona l Treatments

Group NMeangain

Calc. SD _t value df

C r i t i c a l value of _t

1 8 1.1250 0.835.49 14 1.761

2 8 0.7500 1.982

The t_ te s t y ie lded a ca lcu la ted _t value of .49 with 14 degrees


c r i t i c a l value fo r a o n e - ta i le d te s t at the .05 level is 1.761.

Therefore, the d i r e c t io n a l Hypothesis 4 cannot be supported. How

ever , the s t a t i s t i c a l information indicates the two in s t ru c t io n a l




Hypothesis 5 stated th a t the spat ia l v i s u a l i z a t io n achievement

gain of Group 3 (no in s t ru c t io n ) w i l l not be as high as e i t h e r i n

s t ru c t io n a l treatment Groups 1 or 2 as measured by p r e te s t /p o s t te s t

gains. A global average gain f o r each of these groups was calcu

la ted by subtract ing orthographic pretest scores from orthographic

posttest scores (see Table 14 f o r a summary).

To te s t fo r the s t a t i s t i c a l s ign i f icance of the v i s u a l i z a t io n

gain d i f fe rences achieved between groups, the data summarized in


56

Table 14 were analyzed using one-way ANOVA. The resu l ts of th is

t e s t are reported in Table 15.

Table 14

Posttreatment V is u a l i z a t io n Gains Summary

Group £ Mean gain SD

1 30 1.00 1.78

2 29 0.86 1.86

3 27 0.44 2.08

Table 15

Analysis of Variance fo r Gain Score Comparisons Between Groups 1, 2, and 3

Source dfSum o f Mean squares squares

Fr a t io

Fprob.

Betweengroups 2 4.6874 2.3437 .6396 .5301

The one-way ANOVA f ind ings (£ p r o b a b i l i t y = .5301) indicated

t h a t the gains achieved by treatment Groups 1 and 2 were not s i g n i f

i c a n t ly d i f f e r e n t than those achieved by Group 3 at the .05 le v e l .

This implies that learn ing by the control group, simply through

exposure to the p r e t e s t , is s t a t i s t i c a l l y equal to tha t of the two

groups who were taught using sp e c i f ic v i s u a l i z a t io n imagery.


Hypothesis 6 stated th a t the posttreatment gain scores of the

four apt i tude leve ls w i th in Group 1 ( the hinged glass box) w i l l be

equal. The mean scores f o r Group 1 by apt i tude level are displayed

in Table 16.

Table 16

Mean Scores by Aptitude Level fo r the Glass Box Treatment Group

Apti tudelevel

Pretestaverage

Posttestaverage

Meangain

Low 2.85 4.00 1.14

Middle low 3.14 4.00 0.85

Middle high 5.75 6.23 0.88

High 6.00 7.13 1.13

To t e s t f o r e q u a l i t y of gains across apt i tude leve ls w ith in

Group 1 , the data reported in Table 16 were analyzed using one-way

ANOVA. The re s u l ts of t h is t e s t are reported in Table 17.

Table 17

Analysis o f Variance f o r Gain Score Comparisons Between Apti tude Levels Within Group 1


Meansquares

F F r a t i o prob.

Betweenleve ls 3 .5357 .1786 .0508 .9845


58

The one-way ANOVA f ind ings ( £ p r o b a b i l i t y = .9845) indicated

tha t the gain scores between apt itude leve ls with in Group 1 were not

s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t at the .05 le v e l .

Hypothesis 7 stated th a t the posttreatment gain scores of the

four apt i tude leve ls w i th in Group 2 ( the bowl/hemisphere) w i l l be

equal. The mean scores f o r Group 2 by apt i tude level are displayed

in Table 18.

Table 18

Mean Scores by Aptitude Level f o r the Bowl/Hemisphere Treatment Group

Aptitudelevel

Pretestaverage

Posttestaverage

Meangain

Low 2.42 4.00 1.57

Middle low 3.66 4.66 1.00

Middle high 4.38 4.63 0.25

High 5.25 6.00 0.75

To te s t f o r e q u a l i ty of gains across apt i tude leve ls w ith in

Group 2, the data reported in Table 18 were analyzed using one-way

ANOVA. the resu l ts of t h is t e s t are reported in Table 19.

The one-way ANOVA f ind ings ( £ p r o b a b i l i t y = .6177) indicated

tha t the gain scores between apt i tude leve ls with in Group 2 were not

s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t at the .05 le v e l .


59

Table 19

Analysis o f Var iance f o r Gain Score Comparisons Between Aptitude Levels Within Group 2


Meansquares

Fr a t io

Fprob.

Betweenleve ls 3 6.7340 2.2447 .6063 .6177

Summary

This chapter focused on the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of the data

co l lec ted and reported in Chapter I I I . Scores a t ta ined on each of

the pre tes ts (DAT-SR-T and Orthographic) by the 92 subjects of the

study were in keeping with expectations based on te s t norms. And

the three groups used in t h is research began as s t a t i s t i c a l equals

in sp a t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n a b i l i t y .

Each of the four primary research hypotheses pred ic t ing higher

orthographic p ro jec t ion achievement gains fo r those ind iv idua ls

taught with the bowl/hemisphere imagery were re je c te d . They could

not be s t a t i s t i c a l l y supported, although with in two v is u a l i z a t io n

apt i tude leve ls ( low and middle low) ind iv id u a ls averaged higher raw

score gains when taught with bowl/hemisphere imagery. And within

a l l four apt i tude leve ls no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f fe ren c e was

found in the orthographic pro ject ion knowledge gains of those i n d i

v iduals taught with glass box imagery and those taught with bowl/

hemisphere imagery.


The control group th a t received no in s t ru c t io n a l treatment

scored approximately one h a l f of the gain in orthographic pro ject ion

knowledge found in the two groups rece iv ing sp e c i f ic types of v isu

a l i z a t i o n imagery. However, the control groups' gains were s u f f i

c ien t to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y equal to the two ins t ru c t iona l treatment

groups. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was also re jec ted .

Hypotheses 6 and 7 p r e d i c t e d t h a t o r t h o g r a p h ic p r o j e c t i o n

knowledge gains across v is u a l i z a t io n apt i tude levels and with in

groups would be equal. Each of these hypotheses was s t a t i s t i c a l l y

supported. Questions ra ised by each of the f ind ings revealed in

t h is chapter w i l l be f u r th e r discussed in Chapter V.


CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The modern engineering and technology bachelor of science cur

riculum has been f ix e d at a f i n i t e 124 semester hours (ABET, 1989).

Concurrent ly , the seemingly exponential growth of engineering and

technical knowledge is being collapsed into the t r a d i t i o n a l four -

year B.S. degree program. Leaders in curriculum and ins t ru c t ion

( i . e . , engineering deans and department cha irs) must examine the

value o f a l l e x is t in g c u r r i c u l a r content. For essent ia l curriculum

mater ia l ( i . e . , mul t iv iew orthographic p r o je c t io n ) , more e f f e c t i v e

and e f f i c i e n t d e l i v e r y methods must be found. Therefore , the con

s t ruct ion of t h is research study began with a desire to prove tha t

the bowl/hemisphere method o f teaching multi view orthographic pro

je c t io n would be more e f f e c t i v e than the t r a d i t i o n a l glass box ap

proach. As such, the independent v a r ia b le manipulated in t h is study

was the in s t ru c t io n a l method used in teaching mult iv iew orthographic

p ro jec t io n ; and the dependent v a r ia b le was the spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n

development of students as demonstrated through t h e i r a b i l i t y to

m enta l ly solve complex mult iv iew orthographic problems.

Seven s p e c i f ic research hypotheses were developed and tes ted ,

thereby providing a framework fo r conclusions drawn in t h is chapter.

The four primary research hypotheses comparing the glass box method

o f teaching spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n to the bowl/hemisphere method were

61


tested using the t_ t e s t fo r independent means.

The three secondary research hypotheses were also tes ted . The

f i r s t of these secondary hypotheses compared spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n

gains o f each of the two in s t ru c t io n a l treatment groups to the con

t r o l group and was t e s t e d using one-way a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e

(ANOVA). The la s t two hypotheses, comparing spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n

gains w i th in treatment groups and across four apt i tude le v e ls , were

also tested using one-^ay ANOVA.

Pretes t ing f o r Spat ia l V is u a l i z a t io n A b i l i t y

A l l 92 subjects who o r i g i n a l l y consented to p a r t ic ip a t e in th is

research study were given the Psychological Corporation's (1972)

D i f f e r e n t i a l Aptitude Tes t , Space Re la t ions , Form T (DAT-SR-T,

Bennett e t a l . , 1972) , as a p re tes t fo r spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n a b i l i

t y . As a sample t h is group of 92 f i r s t and second year college

students scored a mean of 40.4 on the DAT-SR-T, with scores ranging

from a low of 17 to a high of 57 out of 60. No adult norms ex is t

fo r th is t e s t . However, norms fo r 12th grade boys (n_ = 5,000+) are

published by the Psychological Corporation (Bennett et a l . , 1974).

These published norms ind ic a te a score o f 40 .4 resides in the 65th

p e r c e n t i l e , a score of 17 resides in the 10th p e rc e n t i l e , and a

score of 57 resides in the 97th p e rc e n t i l e fo r 12th grade boys

( i . e . , a score of 34 = 50th p e r c e n t i l e ) .

The d i f fe renc e in sp a t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n a b i l i t y between the

12th grade norms and the study sample scores can be accounted f o r

through two f a c t o r s . F i r s t , when compared to 12th g r a d e r s , a


minimum of from one to two years of mental maturation has occurred

in the sample group used in th is study. Second, the sample used in

th is study have a l l expressed an in te re s t in engineering and tech

nology through the se lec t ion of a technical col lege major. Consid

er ing these fa c to rs , the higher sample mean score was expected. In

add i t io n , the range of scores achieved by the 92 research subjects

appears to be representa t ive of the range tha t could be expected in

the general populat ion. Therefore, on th is one measure ( i . e . , spa

t i a l v is u a l i z a t io n a b i l i t y ) , the inference is that th is sample group

is typ ica l of those tha t would be found in other s im i la r s i tu a t io n s .

Mean scores achieved on the DAT-SR-T by the three treatment

groups used in th is study were tested for e q u a l i t y using one-way

ANOVA ( r e f e r to Chapter I V ) . No s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n t d i f fe renc e

was found between these groups at the .05 l e v e l . For purposes of

th is research, the spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n a b i l i t y of the groups was

concluded to be equal. This e q u a l i ty makes posttreatment compari

sons of spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n a b i l i t y v a l id .

Pretes t ing fo r M ult iv iew Orthographic Project ion A b i l i t y

A second pretest ( the Western Michigan Un ive rs i ty D iagnost ic /

Achievement Quiz: Part 3, Spat ia l Perception, Nowak, et a l . , 1991)

was given to a l l subjects. This second 12- i tem pre tes t s p e c i f i c a l l y

tested mult iv iew orthographic project ion knowledge. The scores

achieved on th is pretest were used as a basel ine from which to meas

ure posttreatment gains in spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n a b i l i t y .


Complete data were co l lec ted on 86 subjects of the 92 who began

the study. The mean score achieved by the remaining 86 study par

t i c ip a n ts was 4.15 cor rec t . Norm information was provided about

th is 12- item te s t by Western Michigan U n iv e rs i ty 's Testing and Eval

uation Service (Nowak et a l . , 1991). A norm mean score of 4 .2 was

found using a random sample of 100 co l lege age technical students

who previously took the t e s t . Again, i t was concluded tha t the

study p a r t ic ip a n ts were representa t ive of f i r s t and second year

col lege students majoring in technical subjects.

A Pearson product-moment r. co r re la t io n c o e f f ic ie n t was calcu

la ted between the two p re tes ts . A .50 co r re la t io n c o e f f i c ie n t was

found ( r e f e r to Chapter I V ) , ind ica t ing th a t there are some common

underlying psychological constructs being tested by both i n s t r u

ments. However, th is moderate pos i t iv e co r re la t io n also indicated

d i f f e r i n g psychological constructs were probed. These s i m i l a r i t i e s

and d i f fe rences were expected due to the increased level of spat ia l

v i s u a l i z a t io n so p h is t ica t ion required in the solving of multiv iew

orthographic p ro jec t ion problems.


Research on the underly ing psychological constructs r e l a t i n g to

spa t ia l v i s u a l i z a t io n indicated tha t the bowl/hemisphere method of

teaching mult iv iew orthographic p ro jec t ion may be superior to tha t

of the glass box method. Given th is p re d ic t io n , four primary r e

search hypotheses were developed and tes ted . Each of the four hy

potheses were based upon the premise th a t spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n


i n s t ru c t io n using bowl/hemisphere imagery is superior to tha t which

uses glass box imagery. Four s im i la r hypotheses were developed, one

to account f o r each of the fo l lowing v is u a l i z a t io n apt i tude leve ls :

low, middle low, middle high, and high ( r e f e r to Chapter I I I ) .

Group 1 received in s t ru c t io n in orthographic p r in c ip les using

glass box imagery and Group 2 received s im i la r ins t ru c t ion using

bowl/hemisphere imagery. Following th is in s t ru c t io n , the 12- item

posttest was administered to each group and mean gains were computed

with in groups f o r each apt i tude le v e l . Each primary research hy

pothesis was then tested using these gain scores by apt i tude level

in a jt t e s t f o r independent means. Gains w ith in each treatment

group were not found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t at the .05 le v e l .

Therefore, each of the four primary d i re c t io n a l research hypotheses

were re je c te d . Bowl/hemisphere imagery in s t ru c t ion was not found to

be b e t te r than glass box imagery in s t ru c t io n . However, the raw

score and _t te s t re s u l ts served to show tha t bowl/hemisphere in

s t ruc t ion y ie lded gains in visual knowledge that were roughly equal

to the gains y ie lded by the glass box in s t ru c t io n . From th is i n f o r

mation, i t can be concluded th a t the bowl/hemisphere method of v isu

a l i z a t i o n is not , by i t s e l f , more e f f e c t i v e than the glass box meth

od. Yet, as a re s u l t of t h is study, the bowl/hemisphere method of

v i s u a l i z a t i o n cannot be considered of no value (see Recommendations

f o r Further S tudy ) .


66


Group 3 was used as a control group and received no formal

in s t ru c t io n in orthographic p r in c ip les during the time of the study.

This group was used to account fo r knowledge gained through exposure

to the p re te s t , a phenomenon known as the p r e te s t /p o s t te s t e f f e c t .

The f i r s t of the secondary research hypotheses ( i . e . , Hypothesis 5)

stated tha t the v i s u a l i z a t io n achievement gains of the control group

would not equal the achievement gains of e i th e r o f the two treatment

groups as measured by the post test . Hypothesis 6 was tested using

one-way ANOVA. And although the raw score gains of the control

group were approximately one h a l f tha t of e i th e r treatment group.

The gains of a l l three groups were not found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y

d i f f e r e n t at the .05 le v e l .

From the analysis of var iance performed on the mean gains fo r

a l l three groups, i t could be concluded that no v i s u a l i z a t io n t r a i n

ing was equal to 2 hours o f very formal and in tens ive v is u a l i z a t io n

in s t ru c t io n ( i . e . , e i th e r the glass box or the bowl/hemisphere).

Although th is conclusion may be s t a t i s t i c a l l y accurate, several

other explanations must be considered. F i r s t , raw score gains fo r

the two treatment groups were twice those o f the control group;

however, 2 hours of v i s u a l i z a t io n imagery may not have been enough

to y i e l d gains tha t were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . By simply in

c re a s in g the v i s u a l i z a t i o n imagery t r a i n i n g a given number o f

minutes or hours, posttreatment gains may have been d ram at ic a l ly

increased. Second, the control group was an in ta c t group of welding


majors. In the manual work performed by these welding students in

t h e i r labora tory courses, geometric shapes were r o u t in e ly manipu

lated and welded together . This type of manual work may have ac

counted fo r some of the gain scored by th is group on the posttest as

was the case in another study (Laws, 1986) . Third, the control

group met at 8:00 a.m., while the treatment groups met at 3:00 p.m.

Therefore, the control group may have been more fresh and d i l i g e n t

when they took the pos t te s t .

Hypotheses 6 and 7 stated th a t the posttreatment gain scores of

the four apt i tude leve ls w i th in Groups 1 and 2 would be equal, r e

spe c t ive ly . Both hypotheses were tested using one-way ANOVA. The

gain scores between ap t i tude leve ls w ith in each group were found to

be not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t at the .05 l e v e l . This may be ex

plained in the fo l low ing way.

The 12- item posttes t was s t a t i s t i c a l l y arranged from simple to

complex using data from thousands of students who previously a t

tempted answering each item in e a r l i e r versions of the instrument.

Therefore, gains made from the pretest to the posttest by lower

apt i tude v is u a l i z e r s took place in the beginning items ( i . e . , less

complex) of the instrument. Higher apt i tude v is u a l i z e r s had to make

t h e i r gains among the ending items ( i . e . , more complex) of the in

strument. In t h is way the construction of the te s t tended to even

out the gains across ap t i tude lev e ls .


68

Spat ia l V is u a l i z a t io n Imagery

Leaders w ith in the engineering education community have, for

some 100 plus years, t r i e d to increase the e f fec t iveness and e f f i

c ie n c y w i th which s p a t i a l v i s u a l i z a t i o n is t a u g h t and learned

(Booker, 1963). Successful representation of three-dimensional

objects on a two-dimensional medium requires spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n

by the designer or d r a f t e r . Simply reading a b luepr in t requires re

versing the v i s u a l i z a t io n process from the two-dimensional paper

graphic to the three-dimensional object by a l l others. Spatia l

v is u a l i z a t io n imagery, such as the bowl/hemisphere and glass box,

aids in th is t r a n s i t i o n of the mind from two dimensional to three

dimensional and back to two dimensional. As previously stated in

Chapter I , Cronbach and Snow (1981) re fe r red to these v is u a l i z a t io n

imagery aids as mental prostheses. This research study is fu r th e r

evidence the spa t ia l v i s u a l i z a t i o n imagery alone is not the answer.

As in the La jo ie (1986) study, l i t t l e proof was found in th is study

tha t spa t ia l v i s u a l i z a t io n can be taught to a l l ind iv idua ls and

t ra n s fe r re d to a t e s t . The t ime devoted to spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n in

the modern engineering and technology curriculum may simply not be

enough. The higher leve ls of spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n required of

engineering students and personnel may take years to f u l l y develop,

as does reading. Yet, sp a t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n imagery provides the

learner with tha t f i r s t mental foundation upon which fu r th e r psycho

log ica l development is b u i l t .


69

Recommendations fo r Further Study

Given the f ind ings o f th is study, i t is c lear tha t the e f f e c

t iveness issue of teaching spa t ia l v i s u a l i z a t io n was not resolved

through th is research. However, the research on psychological con

structs c i te d in Chapter I I coupled with the f ind ings discussed in

Chapter IV ind ica te that there is value in the bowl/hemisphere im

agery. Leaders w ith in the spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n research and engi

neering graphics education community may wish to conduct fu r th e r

study on the use of bowl/hemisphere imagery. Therefore, the f o l lo w

ing studies are proposed as they r e l a t e to sp a t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n and

leadership in the teaching of multiv iew orthographic pro jec t ion .

1. Repeat t h is study with increased spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n

lec tu re t ime. This study would f ind out i f v i s u a l i z a t io n imagery

alone can at some point crea te s i g n i f i c a n t learning gains. As noted

by Raudebaugh (1988) , educators are today t y p i c a l l y teaching spat ia l

v i s u a l i z a t io n p r in c ip le s in one f i f t h of the t ime they did 30 years

ago. Also, the v isual systems temporal resolving power, as i d e n t i

f i e d by Randhawa and Coffman (1978) , may requ ire increased demon

s t r a t io n re p e t i t io n s to imprint human cognit ion with spa t ia l v i s u a l

i z a t io n p r in c ip le s .

2. Repeat t h is study and add a four th in s t ru c t io n a l treatment

group. Group 4 would then receive in s t ru c t io n th a t uses the glass

box and the bowl/hemisphere imagery simultaneously. Each image

would be used to complement the other in a h o l i s t i c way tha t is in

keeping with G e s ta l t i c concepts i d e n t i f i e d by Gibson (1969) . And as


such the p o s s i b i l i t y of a new and higher level of learner under

standing ( i . e . , in s ig h t ) is created.

3. Conduct a study s im i la r to th is one with manual d r a f t in g

labora tory exercises added. Help given to the subjects of th is

proposed study would be imagery spec i f ic ( i . e . , glass box or bowl/

hemisphere). The labora tory exercises would be graded, thereby,

adding some importance to the v is u a l i z a t io n process. The physical

act of drawing with pencil and paper helps an ind iv idua l to access

the r ig h t hemispheric side of t h e i r brain (Edwards, 1989). And the

r ig h t hemispheric side of the brain is known to often contain non

temporal, s p a t i a l , and h o l i s t i c cognit ive funct ions; each of which

has been shown to p o s i t i v e l y a f fe c t spa t ia l v i s u a l i z a t i o n .

4. Conduct a survey of several hundred experienced d r a f t e r s ,

designers, engineers, technical i l l u s t r a t o r s , and a r t i s t s to d e te r

mine how th e y s p a t i a l l y v i s u a l i z e and m e n t a l l y r o t a t e t h r e e -

dimensional objects p r io r to creating two-dimensional drawings. A

study of t h is type may discover new spat ia l v is u a l i z a t io n imagery

methods or point to the most appropr iate e x is t in g method fo r teach

ing m ult iv iew or thographic p ro jec t io n .


APPENDICES

71


Appendix A

D e f in i t io n of Terms

72


73

D e fin itio n o f Terms

The fo l low ing d e f i n i t io n s fo r terms used in th is study w i l l

provide a common basis of understanding.

Bowl/hemispheric method: An unconventional method of teaching

orthographic p ro jec t ion in which an object is placed in the middle

of a bowl or hemispheric shape. The f ro n t view of the object is

viewed by looking d i r e c t l y into the bowl from above. Other views

are developed by s l id in g the object along the surface of the bowl

u n t i l another side of the object is f u l l y exposed (see Figure 1 ) .

Cognit ion: A l l our mental a b i1i t i e s —-perce iv ing, remembering,

reasoning, and many o th e r s - -a re organized in to a complex system, the

ove ra l l funct ion of which is termed cognit ion (Glass, Holyoak, &

Santa, 1979) .

F ie ld dependence: A lack of a b i l i t y to impose s t ructure on an

unorganized or camouflaged perceptual f i e l d .

F ie ld independence: The a b i l i t y to impose s t ructure on an

unorganized perceptual f i e l d (Dahl , 1984).

F i r s t - a n g le p r o je c t io n : A form of orthographic p ro jec t ion used

in Europe in which the object appears between the plane of p ro jec

t io n and the v iewer 's l in e of s ight .

F l e x i b i l i t y of c lo s u re : The a b i l i t y to hold a given visual

precept or conf igurat ion in mind so as to disembed i t from other

w el l -d e f in ed perceptual m ater ia l (Ekstrom, French, & Harmon, 1976).

Hinged g lass box m ethod: A method o f t e a c h in g m u l t i v i e w

orthographic p ro jec t io n in which an object is placed inside a real


or imaginary hinged glass box. A f te r the object has been projected

and drawn on a l l sides of the glass box, i t is unfolded in to a

s ingle two-dimensional surface showing each view of the object in

re la t io n s h ip to one another (see Figure 1 ) .

Lef t b r a in : The l e f t hemispheric side of the b ra in , genera l ly

including ve rba l , a n a ly t i c , symbolic, abs trac t , temporal, r a t i o n a l ,

d i g i t a l , l o g ic a l , and l in e a r cognit ive funct ions, which is dominant

in the m a jo r i ty of in d iv id u a ls .

M u l t i view orthographic p r o je c t io n : The representation o f re

lated views of an object as i f they were a l l in the same plane and

projected by orthographic p ro jec t io n .

Nonvisual: An a r b i t r a r y designation given to ind iv idua ls who

score poorly on one or more standardized tes ts f o r varying forms of

visual cognit ion .

Orthographic p r o je c t io n : Project ion of a s ingle view in which

the view is projected along l ines perpendicular to both the view and

the drawing surface.

Right b r a i n : The r ig h t hemispheric side of the b ra in , gener

a l l y including nonverbal, s yn th e t ic , concrete ana logic , nontemporal,

nonra t iona l , s p a t i a l , i n t u i t i v e , and h o l i s t i c cognit ive funct ions ,

which is dominant in some in d iv id u a ls .

Spat ia l v i s u a l i z a t i o n : The apt i tude to comprehend imaginary

movement of an object in three-dimensional space.

Speed of c lo su re : The a b i l i t y to unite an apparent ly disparate

perceptual f i e l d into a s ingle concept (Ekstrom et a l . , 1976) .


Third angle p r o je c t io n ; A form of orthographic p ro jec t ion used

in the U n i te d S t a t e s in which the p lane o f p r o j e c t i o n appears

between the object and the v iewer 's l in e of s ight .

Vi s u a l : An a r b i t r a r y designation given to in d iv idu a ls who

score well on one or more standardized tes ts fo r varying forms of

visual cognit ion.

V i s u a l i z a t i o n : The a b i l i t y to manipulate or transform the

image of spa t ia l patterns in to other arrangements (Ekstrom et a l . ,

1976).


Appendix B

Recruitment S crip t

76


77

SUBJECT SELECTION PROCEDURE ORAL PRESENTATION

Recruitment Scr ip t

I am conducting a formal research study through Western M ich i gan U n ive rs i ty as part of my doctoral d is s e r ta t io n . The purpose of the study w i l l be to compare the e f fec t iveness o f using two methods of teaching mult iv iew orthographic pro ject ion to col lege students with varying leve ls of sp a t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n a b i l i t y .

Because generalized resu l ts of th is study w i l l be published, p a r t ic ip a n ts must be vo lunteers . I am seeking volunteers from th is class. Each volunteer w i l l be asked to take three short tes ts with a t o ta l t ime commitment o f 70 minutes.

P a r t ic ip a t io n or non part ic ipa t ion in the study w i l l have no i n f l u e n c e on your course g ra d e . I f you v o l u n t e e r , you may discont inue your p a r t ic ip a t io n in th is study at any t ime without jeopard iz ing your r e la t io n s h ip with Western Michigan U n ive rs i ty , Ferr is State U n ive rs i ty , or without in f luenc ing your grade.

Your w i l l ingness to p a r t i c ip a t e in th is research study must be indicated by your s ignature on the consent form soon to be passed out . Please read i t c a r e f u l l y before s igning. I f you do not wish to p a r t ic ip a te in th is study, sign a made-up name instead of your real name. Then fo ld the consent form in h a l f fo r c o l l e c t io n . Thank you.


Appendix C

Consent Form

78


79

CONSENT FORM

Mr. Mark A. Curtis of Ferris State University is conducting a formal experimental research study through Western Michigan University as part of his doctoral dissertation. The purpose of the study, which takes place over a two week period, will be to compare the effectiveness of using two methods of teaching multiview orthographic projection to college students with varying levels of spatial visualization ability.

Data collected in this study will be used to Judge the relative worth of two different instructional methodologies. Data will be collected via three tests with a total time committment of 70 minutes. Data collection procedures, exposure to the tests and instructional methodologies involve no forseeable hazard or risk to the participants. This study may provide benefits to future engineering graphics educators and students alike by proving that certain students can be taught more effectively using one visualization technique versus another.

Participation in this study is strictly voluntary. Participation or nonparticipation in this study will have no influence on your course grade. If you volunteer, you may discontinue your participation in this study at any time without Jeopardizing your relationship with Western Michigan University or Ferris State University or your course grade. Special measures have been taken to insure the confidentiality of all participants (approximately 90). If questions or problems should arise relating to this study, the fallowing individuals may be contacted:

Your willingness to voluntarily participate in this research study must be indicated by your signing and dating this consent form in the space provided below. If you do not wish to participate in this study, sign a made-up name instead of your real name or simply do not sign the consent form at all.

Now, please fold the form in half for collection. Thank You.

Dr. Ken Dickie Professor,Educational Leadership Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, MI 49008 (616) 387-3884

Dr. Ray Cross Head, Manufacturing Engineering Technologies Ferris State University Big Rapids, MI 49307 (616) 592-2511

Signature Date

Mark A. Curtis


Appendix D

D i f f e r e n t i a l Apti tude Test Space Relat ions Form T Direct ions and Examples

80


THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CORPORATION-'555 ACAPEMIC COURT, SAN ANTO NIO, TEXAS 78204-2498

TELEPHONE: (512) 299-1001 TELEX: 5I060I5629 TPCSAT FAX: (512) 270-0327

November 7, 1991

Mark A. CurtisGraduate Studentc/o Mfg. Eng. Technologies Dept.Ferris State University Big Rapids, MI 49307

Dear Mr. Curtis:

Thank you for your November 1 fax containing your order for the Differential Aptitude Test material for testing purposes in your dissertation research.

In order to protect the combined usefulness of the test, and as aresponsible test publisher, we believe it is our responsibility to maintain the security and Integrity of our tests. Consequently, we cannot allow items or portions of the test to be bound in, stapled with or microfilmed with your dissertation. Sample items may be bound, but actual test items cannot and must be referred to by page and/or item number as stated in the test.

In addition, all testing should be conducted in your presence or that ofyour faculty advisor so that all test materials remain in your hands.

We will gladly grant permission for use of the test if the aboverestrictions will be adhered to. Please indicate agreement to the above terms by signing and returning a copy of this letter to me for my files. I will release your order upon receipt of the signed document.

Also, please forward a copy of your dissertation when it is completed so that I may retain a copy in our library. If you have any questions regarding the above please contact me directly.

Sincerely,

Christine Doebbler SupervisorRights and Permissions

UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED

DateName

HARCOURT BRACE JOVANOVICH, INC.


82

I; D O N O f c M A K E : A N Y i ,

SPACE RELATIONS

D I R E C T I O N S

f M A R K Y O U R A N S W E R S S ^ ^ ^ H E .'s E ^ A R A T E it

. ^ A N S W E R 8 H B E T V r iBrito iV»W->.—

Find the place for Space Relations on the Answer Sheet.

This test consists of 60 patterns which can be folded into figures. To the right of each pattern there are four figures. You are to decide which one of these figures can be made from the pattern shown. The pattern always shows the outside of the figure. Here is an example:

Example X.

Oi

In Example X, which one of the four figures—A, B, C, D —can be made from the pattern at the left? A and B certainly cannot be made; they are not the right shape. C is correct both in shape and size. You cannot make D from this pattern. Therefore, the space under C has been filled in on line X of your Answer Sheet.

Remember: In this test there will always be a row of four figures following each pattern.

In every row there is only one correct figure.

N ow look at Example Y on the next page.

Copyright 1947, © 1961, 1962, 1972 by The Psychological Corporation.

A ll rights reserved. No part or the test In this booklet may be reproduced in any form o f printing or by any other means, electronic or mechanical, including, but not limited to, photocopying, audiovisual recording and transmission, and portrayal or duplication in any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in w riting from the publisher.

The test contained in this booklet Is designed for use only with answer media published or authorized by The Psychological Corporation. I f other answer media are used. The Psychological Corporation can take no responsibility for the meaningfulness o f scores.

Printed in U.S.A. The Psychological Corporation, New York, N .Y . 10017 73*163TB-


Example Y.

In Example Y all the figures next to the pattern are correct in shape, but only one of them can be made from this pattern. Note that when the pattern is folded, the figure it makes will have three gray surfaces. Two of these will be the largest surfaces, either of which could be the top or the bottom of a box. The other will be one of the smallest surfaces, which would be one end of the box.

Now look at the four figures:

Figure A is wrong. The long, narrow side is not gray in the pattern and the largest surface must be gray.

Figure B is wrong. The largest surface must be gray, although the gray end could be at the back.

Figure C is wrong. The gray top and end arc all right, but there is no long gray side in the pattern.

Figure D is correct. A large gray surface is shown as the top, and the end surface shown is also gray.

So, you see, all four figures are correct in shape, but only one—D —shows the gray surfaces correctly. Therefore, the space under D has been filled in on line Y of your Answer Sheet.

Remember: The surface you see in the pattern must always be the outside surface of the completed figure.

Study the pattern carefully and decide which figure can be made from it.

Only one of the four figures following the pattern is correct.

Show your choice on the Answer Sheet by filling in the space under the letter which is the same as that of the figure you have chosen.

You will have 25 minutes for this test. Work as rapidly and as accurately as you can. If you are not sure of an answer, mark the choice which is your best guess.

D O N O T T U R N T H E P A G E U N T IL Y O U A R E T O L D T O D O S O .


Appendix E

Western Michigan U n iv e rs i ty Diagnostic/Achievement Quiz, Spat ia l Perception, D i rec t io ns , and Example

84


Testing and Evaluation Services Kalamazoo. Michigan 49008-3853 616 387-3905

W e s t e r n M i c h ig a n U n iv e r s it y

Mark A. Curtis January 10, 199215364 Clear Lake Drive Big Rapids, MI 49307

Dear Mark:I recently received your request for written permission to use the Western Michigan University Diagnostic/Achievement Quiz, Part #3, Spatial Perception in your dissertation research. You have my permission to use this portion of the quiz in your research and paper. If you wish, you may include the instructions and related example problems within the appendix of your dissertation. Since this instrument is copyrighted, I would hope that any individuals reading your paper would realize they cannot duplicate our items without similar permission. Best of luck to you, and I hope you will send me a copy of your completed dissertation for our historical records.

Sincerely,

Gerard T. Nowak Associate Director


DiagnosticlAchievement Quiz

PART 3 SPATIAL PERCEPTIONDirections

The problems in Part 3 make use of three-view drawings. A three-view drawing is a drawing of an object that shows three different views (or pictures) of an object. One view is of the object’s front, one is of its top, and one is of its side. On the three-view drawing the top view is drawn above the front view, and the side view is drawn to the right of the front view.

Look at the three dimensional drawings of Objects A and B below. The drawings show the positions a person would have to be in to see the front, top, and side views of the objects. Next to each illustration is the three-view drawing of the object.

Fronc View

Fronc View

Top View

Object Side View

Three-viewdrawing of Object A

Top View

J£ isy Side View

Top View

O bject B

Three-View drawing of Object B

Fronc View Side View

Go to the next page.


Career Guidance Inventory

Each of the problems in Part 3 shows a three-view drawing of an object with one view missing. (The three dimensional illustration of the object is not shown.) You are to select the correct missing view out of the five choices shown to the right of each three-view drawing. Look at the example below and then do the problems in Part 3. Record your answers on the answer sheet beginning with number 229.

EXAMPLE

1.

5 is the correct missing view 1 2 3 4 5

1o o o o ®If you feel unable to answer the questions in this part, feel free to skip this section after

looking carefully at the explanation drawing, the examples and all the problems. Many people will not be able to answer any of the items in this section, especially if they do not have a mechanical background; however, you should answer as many of the items as you can.

When you finish this section you will have completed the Diagnostic/AchievementQuiz.

Begin on page 47, starting with number 229.


Appendix F

Corre la t ion Data fo r Two Pretests

88


89

Pretest Correlation Data

Pre-DAT-SR-T ortho

17.00 3.00 51.00 289.00 9.0021.00 3.00 63.00 441.00 9.0022.00 1.00 22.00 484.00 1.0023.00 5.00 115.00 529.00 25.0032.00 2.00 64.00 1,024.00 4.0034.00 4.00 136.00 1,156.00 16.0034.00 4.00 136.00 1,156.00 16.0035.00 1.00 35.00 1,225.00 1.0036.00 2.00 72.00 1,296.00 4.0037.00 5.00 185.00 1,369.00 25.0038.00 3.00 114.00 1,444.00 9.0038.00 4.00 152.00 1,444.00 16.0039.00 3.00 117.00 1,521.00 9.0040.00 3.00 120.00 1,600.00 9.0040.00 2.00 80.00 1,600.00 9.0041.00 3.00 123.00 1,681.00 9.0042.00 8.00 336.00 1,764.00 64.0044.00 3.00 132.00 1,936.00 9.0044.00 5.00 220.00 1,936.00 25.0044.00 6.00 264.00 1,936.00 36.0045.00 8.00 360.00 2,025.00 64.0045.00 8.00 360.00 2,025.00 64.0046.00 5.00 230.00 2,116.00 25.0047.00 5.00 235.00 2,209.00 25.0048.00 7.00 336.00 2,304.00 49.0050.00 10.00 500.00 2 ,500.00 100.0051.00 4.00 204.00 2,601.00 16.0051.00 4.00 204.00 2,601.00 16.0051.00 4.00 204.00 2,601.00 16.0052.00 5.00 260.00 2,704.00 25.0057.00 9.00 513.00 3,249.00 81.0018.00 3.00 54.00 324.00 9.0021.00 5.00 105.00 441.00 25.0022.00 0.00 0.00 484.00 0.0024.00 3.00 72.00 576.00 9.0034.00 2.00 68.00 1,156.00 4.0035.00 1.00 35.00 1,225.00 1.0035.00 3.00 105.00 1,225.00 9.0036.00 5.00 180.00 1,296.00 25.0038.00 2.00 76.00 1,444.00 4.0038.00 4.00 152.00 1,444.00 16.0038.00 3.00 114.00 1,444.00 9.0040.00 3.00 120.00 1,600.00 9.00

Group 1 s ta r t

Group 1 end _n = 31 Group 2 s ta r t


90

Pretest Correlation Data--Continued

Pre-DAT-SR-T ortho

40.00 6.00 240.00 1,600.00 36.0040.00 3.00 120.00 1,600.00 9.0041.00 6.00 246.00 1,681.00 36.0041.00 5.00 205.00 1,681.00 25.0043.00 1.00 43.00 1,849.00 1.0044.00 3.00 132.00 1,936.00 9.0044.00 5.00 220.00 1,936.00 25.0044.00 4.00 176.00 1,936.00 16.0045.00 5.00 225.00 2,025.00 25.0045.00 5.00 225.00 2 ,025.00 25.0046.00 6.00 276.00 2,116.00 36.0048.00 3.00 144.00 2 ,304.00 9.0049.00 3.00 147.00 2,401.00 9.0050.00 6.00 300.00 2 ,500.00 36.0051.00 6.00 306.00 2 ,601.00 36.0051.00 5.00 255.00 2 ,601.00 25.0055.00 4.00 220.00 3,025.00 16.0055.00 8 . CO 440.00 3 ,025 .00 64.0057.00 7.00 399.00 3,249.00 49.0019.00 0.00 0.00 361.00 0.0022.00 3.00 66.00 484.00 9.0024.00 4.00 96.00 576.00 16.0034.00 2.00 68.00 1 ,156.00 4 .0035.00 2.00 70.00 1 ,225.00 4.0036.00 3.00 108.00 1,296.00 9.0037.00 7.00 259.00 1,369.00 49.0037.00 3.00 111.00 1,369.00 9.0038.00 4.00 152.00 1,444.00 16.0038.00 2.00 76.00 1,444.00 4 .0038.00 7.00 266.00 1,444.00 49.0039.00 6.00 234.00 1,521.00 36.0039.00 3.00 117.00 1,521.00 9.0039.00 4 .00 156.00 1 ,521.00 16.0039.00 3.00 117.00 1,521.00 9.0040.00 2.00 80.00 1 ,600.00 4 .0040.00 3.00 120.00 1,600.00 9.0040.00 4 .00 160.00 1,600.00 16.0040.00 2.00 80.00 1,600.00 4.0042.00 3.00 126.00 1,764.00 9.0044.00 5.00 220.00 1,936.00 25.0046.00 5.00 230.00 2 ,116 .00 25.0046.00 4.00 184.00 2,116.00 16.0047.00 5.00 235.00 2 ,209.00 25.0048.00 3.00 144.00 2,304.00 9.00

Group 2 end _n = 31 Group 3 s t a r t


91

Pretest Correlation Data--Continued

DAT-SR-TPre

ortho

48.00 3.00 144.00 2,304.00 9.0049.00 4.00 196.00 2 ,401 .00 16.0052.00 8.00 416.00 2 ,704.00 64.0055.00 4.00 220.00 3 ,025 .00 16.0057.00 6.00 342.00 3,249.00 36.00 Group 3 end ji = 30

3 ,720.00 378.00 16,136 .00 158,296.00 1,915.00 TotalsX Y XY X(X) Y(Y)

1,244.00 139.00 n = 31 52,766.00 786.00 Group 1 sums1,268.00 125.00 n = 31 54,750 .00 607.00 Group 2 sums1,208 .00 114.00 _n = 30 50,780.00 522.00 Group 3 sums


Appendix G

Pretest/Posttest/Gain fo r StandardDeviation Calculation Data

92



Pretest Posttest GainPre

(Pre)Post

(Post)Gain

(Gain)

3.00 3.00 0.00 9.00 9.00 0.001.00 1.00 0 .00 1.00 1.00 0.005.00 4.00 -1 .0 0 25.00 16.00 1.002.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 25.00 9.004.00 6.00 2.00 16.00 36.00 4.004.00 5.00 1.00 16.00 25.00 1.001.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 16.00 9.002.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 25.00 9.005.00 2.00 -3 .0 0 25.00 4.00 9.003.00 3.00 0.00 9.00 9.00 0.004.00 2.00 -2 .0 0 16.00 4.00 4.003.00 6.00 3.00 9.00 36.00 9.003.00 3.00 0.00 9.00 9.00 0.002.00 7.00 5.00 4.00 49.00 25.003.00 5.00 2.00 9.00 25.00 4.008.00 10.00 2.00 64.00 100.00 4.003.00 5.00 2.00 9.00 25.00 4.005.00 5.00 0 .00 25.00 25.00 0.006.00 4.00 - 2 .0 0 36.00 16.00 4.008.00 7.00 -1 .0 0 64.00 49.00 1.008.00 9.00 1.00 64.00 81.00 1.005.00 8.00 3.00 25.00 64.00 9.005.00 6.00 1.00 25.00 36.00 1.007.00 9.00 2.00 49.00 81.00 4.00

10.00 10.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.004.00 5.00 1.00 16.00 25.00 1.004.00 6.00 2.00 16.00 36.00 4.004 .00 6.00 2.00 16.00 36.00 4.005.00 5.00 0.00 25.00 25.00 0.009.00 10.00 1.00 81.00 100.00 1.00

136.00 166.00 30.00 772.00 1,088.00 122.00

Group 1 s t a r t

Group 1 end Sums n = 30



Pretest Posttest GainPre

(Pre)Post

(Post)Gain

(Gain)

3.00 5.00 2.00 9.00 25.00 4.005.00 6.00 1.00 25.00 36.00 1.000.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 4.003.00 4.00 1.00 9.00 16.00 1.002.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 16.00 4.001.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.003.00 5.00 2.00 9.00 25.00 4.005.00 4.00 -1 .0 0 25.00 16.00 1.002.00 4 .00 2.00 4.00 16.00 4.003.00 4.00 1.00 9.00 16.00 1.003.00 3.00 0.00 9.00 9.00 0.006.00 6.00 0.00 36.00 36.00 0.003.00 7.00 4.00 9.00 49.00 16.006.00 2.00 - 4 .0 0 36.00 2.00 16.005.00 4.00 - 1 .0 0 25.00 16.00 1.001.00 5.00 4.00 1.00 25.00 16.003.00 6.00 3.00 9.00 36.00 9.005.00 3.00 -2 .0 0 25.00 9.00 2.004.00 4.00 0.00 16.00 16.00 0.005.00 6.00 1.00 25.00 36.00 1.006.00 7.00 1.00 36.00 49.00 1.003.00 4.00 1.00 9.00 16.00 1.003.00 2.00 -1 .00 9.00 4.00 1.006.00 5.00 -1 .0 0 36.00 25.00 1.006.00 10.00 4 .00 36.00 100.00 16.005.00 7.00 2.00 25.00 49.00 4.004.00 5.00 1.00 16.00 25.00 1.008.00 6.00 -2 .0 0 64.00 36.00 4.007.00 9.00 2.00 49.00 81.00 4.00

116.00 141.00 25.00 566.00 793.00 119.00

Group 2 s ta r t



95


Pre Post GainPretest Posttest Gain (Pre) (Post) (Gain)

0.00 4.003.00 2.004 .00 2.002.00 4.003.00 6.007.00 5.003.00 6.004 .00 2.002.00 3.007.00 5.006.00 4 .003.00 4.004.00 5.003.00 3.002.00 6.003 .00 4 .004.00 2.003 .00 5.005.00 2.004 .00 4.005.00 7.003.00 3.003.00 6.004 .00 2.008.00 10.004.00 5.006.00 6.00

105.00 117.00

4 .00 0.00-1 .0 0 9.00-2 .0 0 16.002.00 4 .003.00 9.00

-2 .0 0 49.003.00 9.00

-2 .0 0 16.001.00 4.00

- 2 .0 0 49.00- 2 .0 0 36.00

1.00 9.001.00 16.000 .00 9.004.00 4.001.00 9.00

-2 .0 0 16.002.00 9.00

- 3 .0 0 25.000 .00 16.002.00 25.000 .00 9.003.00 9.00

- 2 .0 0 16.002.00 64.001.00 16.000.00 36.00

12.00 489.00

16.00 16.004.00 1.004.00 4 .00

16.00 4.0036.00 9.0025.00 4.0036.00 9.00

4.00 4.009.00 1.00

25.00 4.0016.00 4.0016.00 1.0025.00 1.00

9.00 0.0036.00 16.0016.00 1.00

4.00 4.0025.00 4 .00

4.00 9.0016.00 0.0049.00 4.00

9.00 0.0036.00 9.00

4.00 4 .00100.00 4.0025.00 1.0036.00 0.00

601.00 118.00

Group 3 s ta r t



Appendix H

Complete Raw Data by Subject, Test,Group, and Aptitude Level

96



97

ubject DAT-SR-TPre

orthoPostortho Group Aptitude

1 17.00 _ _

2 21.00 3.00 3.00 1 1 Low3 22.00 1.00 1.00 1 14 23.00 5.00 4.00 1 15 32.00 2.00 5.00 1 16 34.00 4 .00 6.00 1 17 34.00 4.00 5.00 1 18 35.00 1.00 4.00 1 19 36.00 2.00 5.00 1 2 Middle

10 37.00 5.00 2.00 1 211 38.00 3.00 3.00 1 212 38.00 4 .00 2.00 1 213 39.00 3.00 6.00 1 214 40.00 3.00 3.00 1 215 40.00 2.00 7.00 1 216 41.00 3.00 5.00 1 3 Middle17 42.00 8.00 10.00 1 318 44.00 3.00 5.00 1 319 44.00 5.00 5.00 1 320 44.00 6 .00 4.00 1 321 45.00 8.00 7.00 1 322 45.00 8 .00 9.00 1 323 46.00 5.00 8.00 1 324 47.00 5.00 6.00 1 4 High25 48.00 7.00 9.00 1 426 50.00 10.00 10.00 1 427 51.00 4.00 5.00 1 428 51.00 4 .00 6.00 1 429 51.00 4.00 6.00 1 430 52.00 5.00 5.00 1 431 57.00

1 ,244 .009.00

136.0010.00

166.001 4



98

ubject DAT-SR-TPre

orthoPostortho Group Apt i

1 18.00 3.00 5.00 2 12 21.00 5.00 6.00 2 13 22.00 0.00 2.00 2 14 24.00 3.00 4.00 2 15 34.00 2.00 4.00 2 16 35.00 1.00 2.00 2 17 35.00 3.00 5.00 2 18 36.00 5.00 4.00 2 29 38.00 2.00 4.00 2 2

10 38.00 — 2 -

11 38.00 3.00 4.00 2 212 40.00 3.00 3.00 2 213 40.00 6.00 6.00 2 214 40.00 3.00 7.00 2 215 41.00 6.00 2.00 2 316 41.00 5.00 4 .00 2 317 4 3 . CO 1.00 5.00 2 318 44.00 3.00 6.00 2 319 44.00 5.00 3.00 2 320 44.00 4 .00 4.00 2 321 45.00 — — 2 -

22 45.00 5.00 6.00 2 323 46.00 6.00 7.00 2 324 48.00 3.00 4 .00 2 425 49.00 3.00 2.00 2 426 50.00 6 .00 5.00 2 427 51.00 6.00 10.00 2 428 51.00 5.00 7.00 2 429 55.00 4.00 5.00 2 430 55.00 8 .00 6.00 2 431 57.00 7.00 9.00 2 4

1,268.00 116.00 141.00

Low

Middle low

Middle high

High



99

ubject DAT-SR-TPre

orthoPostortho Group Apt i

1 19.00 0.00 4.00 3 12 22.00 3.00 2.00 3 13 24.00 4.00 2.00 3 14 34.00 - - — 3 -

5 35.00 2.00 4.00 3 16 36.00 3.00 6.00 3 27 37.00 7.00 5.00 3 28 37.00 3 .00 6.00 3 29 38.00 4.00 2.00 3 2

10 38.00 2.00 3.00 3 211 38.00 7.00 5.00 3 212 39.00 6 .00 4.00 3 213 39.00 3.00 4 .00 3 214 39.00 4 .00 5.00 3 215 39.00 3.00 3.00 3 216 40.00 2.00 6.00 3 217 40.00 3.00 4.00 3 218 40.00 4 .00 2.00 3 219 40.00 - - — 3 -

20 42.00 3.00 5.00 3 321 44.00 5.00 2.00 3 322 46.00 - - — 3 -

23 46.00 4.00 4.00 3 324 47.00 5.00 7.00 3 425 48.00 3.00 3.00 3 426 48.00 3.00 6.00 3 427 49.00 4.00 2.00 3 428 52.00 8 .00 10.00 3 429 55.00 4.00 5.00 3 430 57.00 6.00 6.00 3 4

1,208.00 105.00 117.00

Low

Middle low

Middle high

High


Appendix I

Approval L e t te r From Western Michigan Un ive rs i ty Human Subjects I n s t i t u t i o n a l Review Board

100


Human Subjects Institutional Review Board

WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY

Dale: December 11, 1991

To: Mark Curtis

From: Mary Anne Bunda, Chair '/t fa

Re: HSIRB Project Number 91-11-06

This letter will serve as confirmation that your research protocol, "Spatial visualization and teaching multlvlew orthographic projectlpon: An alternative to the glass box" has been approved after expedited review by a subcommittee of the HSIRB. The conditions and duration of this approval are specified In the Policies of Western Michigan University. You may now begin to implement the research as described in the approval application.

You must seek reapproval for any change In this design. You must also seek reapproval if the project extends beyond the termination date.

The Board wishes you success In the pursuit of your research goals.

xc: Dickie, EDLD

Approval Termination: December 11, 1992


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Accred i ta t ion Board f o r Engineering and Technology. (1989). C r i t e - r i a f o r a c c r e d i t i n g programs in e n g in e e r in g t e c h n o lo g y . (Ava i lab le from A ccred i ta t ion Board fo r Engineering Technology, I n c . , 345 East 47th S t r e e t , New York, NY 10017-2397)

American Psychological Associat ion. (1983) . Publicat ion manual of the American Psychological Association (3rd e d . ) . H y a t t s v i1le , MD: Author.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C . , & Razavieh, A. (1979) . In troduct ion to research in education (2nd e d . ) . New York: Ho lt , Rinehart andWinston.

Baird , D. A. (1989) . The c o r re la t io n between v is u a l -h a p t ic perceptual s ty le and student a b i l i t y to solve orthographic p ro jec t ion problems in beginning col lege incorporat ing computer aided d r a f t ing (Doctoral d is s e r t a t io n , Un ivers i ty of Missouri-Columbia, 1989). D isse r ta t ion Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 50, 3871A.

Barr , R. E . , & J u r i c i c , D. (1991, January-February) . Development of a modern curriculum fo r engineering design graphics. Engineering Education, pp. 26-29 .

Batey, A. H. (1986 ) . The e f fe c ts of t r a in in g s p e c i f i c i t y on sex di f fe rences in sp a t ia l a b i l i t y (Doctoral d is s e r ta t io n , U n ive rs i ty of Maryland, 1986) . D isse r ta t ion Abstracts I n t e r n a t io n a l , 47, 2639B.

Bennett, G. K . , Seashore, H. G., & Wesman, A. G. (1972) . D i f fe r e n - t i a l ap t i tude t e s t s . New York: The Psychological Corporation.

Bennett, G. « . , Seashore, H. G ., & Wesman, A. G. (1974) . Manual fo r the d i f f e r e n t i a l ap t i tude te s ts , Forms S and T (5th e d . ) . New York: The Psychological Corporation.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985) . Leaders. New York: Harper andRow.

B e r to l in e , G. R. (1990 ) . A comment. Engineering Design GraphicsJournal , 54 (3 ) , 63-64 .

B e r to l in e , G. R. (1991 ) . Using 3D geometric models to teach spat i a l geometry concepts. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 55,37-47.

102


103

Bloom, B. S. ( E d . ) . (1956) . Taxonomy of educational ob jec t ives ,handbook: Cognit ive domain. New York: Longman.

Bogue, G. E. (1985) . The enemies of leadership . Bloomington, IN:Phi Delta Kappa.

Booker, P. J. (1963) . A h is to ry of engineering drawing. London: Chatto and Windus.

Burns, J. M. (1978) . Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

Burton, T. (1991, June). Using technical graphic theories to enhance student visual perception in graphic problem solving. V i s u a l i z a t i o n and r e s e a rc h I I . Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Society of Engineering Education, New Orleans, LA.

Button, J. (1985) . PC-CALC Version 3 .0 [Computer program]. B e l l e vue, WA: Buttonware.

Campbell, G. (1969) . Programed learning in mechanical drawing: Anexperiment to determine the e f fe c t of presenting programed units selected elements of orthographic p ro jec t ion on the a b i l i t y of pupi ls to v i s u a l i z e sp a t ia l re la t io n s (Doctoral d is s e r ta t io n , New York U n iv e rs i ty , 1969) . D isse r ta t ion Abstracts I n t e r n a t io n a l , 30, 2354A.

Conoley, J. C . , & Kramer, J. J. (E ds . ) . (1989) . The tenth mentalmeasurements yearbook. Lincoln: Un ive rs i ty of Nebraska Press.

Cox, D. W. (1962) . The space ra c e . Ph i lade lph ia , PA: ChiltonBooks.

Cra ig , R. L. ( E d . ) . (1976 ) . Tra in ing and development handbook (2nde d . ) . New York: McGraw-Hil l .

C r a t ty , B. J. (1973 ) . Movement behavior and motor learning (3rd e d . ) . Ph i lade lph ia , PA] Lea and Febiger.

Cronbach, L. J . , & Snow, R. E. (1981) . Aptitudes and in s t ru c t io n a l methods: A handbook f o r research i n t e r a c t i o n s . New York:I rv ing ton .

C u r t is , M. A. (1983) . The development of a curriculum model fo r undergraduate education of manufacturing engineers. Masters Abstracts I n te r n a t io n a l , 2 1 ( 3 ) , 233. (U n iv e rs i ty Microf i lms No. 13-20118)

Dahl, R. D. (1984) . In te ra c t io n of f i e l d dependence independence with computer assisted ins t ru c t io n s t ructure in an orthographic


pro jec t ion lesson (Doctoral d is s e r ta t io n , Iowa State U n ive rs i ty , 1984) . D isse r ta t ion Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 45 , 2012A.

Danie ls , T. D . , & Spiker, B. K. (1987) . Perspectives on organizat io n a l communication. Dubuque, IA: Wil l iam C. Brown.

Diamond, R. M. (1989) . Designing and improving courses and c u r r i cula in higher educat ion. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Edwards, B. (1989) . Drawing on the r ig h t side of the brain ( rev .e d . ) . Los Angeles, CA: Tarcher.

Ekstrom, R. B . , French, J. W., Harman, H. H . , w i th Dermen, D. (1976). Manual fo r k i t of fac tor -re fe renced cognit ive t e s t s . Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

E l i o t , J. (1975) . Ch i ld ren 's spat ia l development. S p r in g f ie ld , IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Elwood, W. F. (1979) . Engineering graphics competencies needed in mechanical engineering prac t ice (Doctoral d is s e r ta t io n , Un ivers i ty of Alabama, 1979) . D isser ta t ion Abstracts I n te r n a t io n a l , 40, 4908A.

Gibson, E. J. (1969) . P r inc ip le s of perceptual learning and devel opment. New York: Appleton, Century and Crof ts .

G iesecke , F. E . , M i t c h e l l , A . , Spencer , H. C . , H i l l , I . L . , &Dygdon, J. T. (1986). Technical drawing (8th e d . ) . New York:Macmi1lan.

Glass, A. L . , Holyoak, J. A . , & Santa, J. L. (1979) . Cogni t ion . Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Gregory, R. L. (1970) . The i n t e l l i g e n t eye. New York: McGraw-H i l l .

Groom, R. E. (1982) . Using computer graphics as a tool to teachbeginning engineering graphics (Doctoral d is s e r ta t io n , Texas A&M U n iv e rs i ty , 1982) . D isser ta t ion Abstracts In t e r n a t i o n a l , 43,3528A.

Groves, E. D. (1970) . The e f fe c t of commercial background music inengineering graphic classes (Doctoral d is s e r ta t io n , Texas A&M U n ive rs i ty , 1970) . D isser ta t ion Abstracts In t e r n a t i o n a l , 31,5004A.

Gruber, H. E . , & Voneche, J. J. (E d s . ) . (1977) . The essent ia lP iage t . New York: Basic Books.


105

Gunter, R. E. (1981). The in tegra l e f fe c ts of color vs. monochrome cueing on d r a f t in g v i s u a l i z a t io n (Doctoral d is s e r ta t io n , Arizona State U n ive rs i ty , 1981). D isser ta t ion Abstracts In te rn a t io n a l , 42, 1516A.

Haber, R. N . , & Hershenson, M. (1973) . The psychology of visual percept ion . New York: Ho lt , Rinehart and Winston.

Hardman, W. E. (1982) . How to read shop p r in ts and drawings. FortWashington, MD: National Tooling and Machining Associat ion.

Heneman, H. G., Schwab, D. P . , Fossum, J. A . , & Dyer, L. D. (1989). Personnel/human resource management (4th e d . ) . Homewood, IL: Irwi n.

H ink le , D. E . , Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (1979) . Applied s t a t i s t i c s fo r the behavioral sciences. Boston, MA: Houghton M i f f l i n .

Huang, C. (1987). The orthographic method fo r the descr ip t ion of three-dimensional objects (Doctoral d is s e r t a t io n , Un ive rs i ty of F lo r id a , 1987) . D isse r ta t ion Abstracts In t e r n a t i o n a l , 4 9 , 12658.

Isaac, S . , & Michael, W. B. (1981). Handbook in research and e v a l uation (2nd e d . ) . San Diego, CA: EdITS.

Ke l ley , L. H. (1985) . The Group Embedded Figures Test and Hidden Figures Test as predic tors of success in engineering graphics (Doctoral d is s e r t a t io n , Auburn U n ive rs i ty , 1985) . P isse r ta t io n Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 46 , 1583A.

Krathwohl, D. R. (1988 ) . How to prepare a research proposal (3rd e d . ) . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse U n ive rs i ty Press.

LaJoie, S. P. (1986) . Ind iv idua l d i f ferences in spa t ia l a b i l i t y :A computerized tu to r fo r orthographic p ro jec t ion (Doctoral d is s e r ta t io n , Stanford U n iv e rs i ty , 1986) . D isse r ta t ion Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 47 , 3370A.

Lauderbach, K. A. (1986) . Cooperative and ind iv idual a c t i v i t i e s : Their e f fe c ts on performance in v is u a l i z a t io n of mul t iv iew or thographic pro ject ions (Doctoral d is s e r t a t io n , Pennsylvania State U n ive rs i ty , 1986). D isser ta t ion Abstracts In te r n a t io n a l , 47,1294A.

Lavande, J. S. (1972) . An app l ica t ion o f P iage t 's theory of spaceand geometry to learn orthographic p ro jec t ion concepts (Doctorald is s e r t a t io n , Michigan State U n iv e rs i ty , 1972) . D isser ta t ion Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 33, 3344A.

Laws, R. M. (1986) . A quasi-experimental approach to te s t in g the e f fe c ts of using three dimensional models in a competency-based


format fo r teaching d r a f t in g in col lege (Doctoral d is s e r t a t io n , Temple U n iv e rs i ty , 1986. D isse r ta t ion Abstracts I n t e r n a t io n a l , 47, 880A.

Mager, R. F . , & Pipe, P. (1984) . Analyzing performance problems (2nd e d . ) . Belmont, CA: David S. Lake.

McKim, R. H. (1980a). Experiences in visual th ink ing (2nd e d . ) . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

McKim, R. H. (1980b) . Thinking v i s u a l l y . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

M i l l e r , C. L. (1990) . Enhancing spa t ia l v is u a l i z a t io n a b i l i t i e s through the use of real and computer generated models. Proceedings of the 1990 annual meeting of the American Society fo r Engineering Education (pp. 131-134) . Washington, DC: American Soci-ety f o r Engineering Education.

M i l l e r , C. L . , & B e r to l in e , G. R. (1989) . Spat ia l v is u a l i z a t io n research and theor ies : Their importance in the development of ane n g in e e r in g and t e c h n i c a l des ign g ra p h ic s c u r r i c u lu m model. Proceedings of the mid-year meeting of the American Society fo r Engineering Education/Engineering Design Graphics Div is ion (pp. 95-104) . Washington, DC: American Society f o r Engineering Educat ion .

M i l l e r , P. W. (1988 ) . In d u s t r ia l technology: A nat ional study ofcurriculum changes and trends. Journal of Ind u s t r ia l Technology, 4 ( 3 ) , 18-26.

M i t c h e l l , J. V . , J r . ( E d . ) . (1983). Tests in p r i n t I I I . Lincoln:Un ive rs i ty of Nebraska Press.

Moore, R. L. (1982) . A study to i d e n t i f y the f i e l d independent- dependent cogn i t ive s ty les of students enrol led in engineering graphics which may p red ic t success as a student and as an engineer (Doctoral d is s e r t a t io n , Auburn U n iv e rs i ty , 1982). P isse r ta - t ion Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 42 , 5101A.

N a is b i t t , J. (1984) . Megatrends. New York: Warner Books.

Ne isser, U. (1967) . Cognit ive psychology. Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e - H a l l .

Nowak, G. T. (1991) . [Report: Item analysis ( long form), mechanic a l ] . Unpublished raw data.

Nowak, G. T . , W al ter , J. C . , Vander Ark, J. D . , & Henry, G. K. (1991). Diagnostic/achievement qu iz . Kalamazoo: Western M ich i gan U n ive rs i ty .


O l iv e r , A. I . (1965) . Curriculum improvement: A guide to problems, p r in c ip le s , and procedures. New York: Dodd, Mead.

Pulaski, M. S. (1980). Understanding P ia g e t . New York: Harperand Row.

Randhawa, B. S . , & Coffman, W. E. (1978) . Visual lea rn ing , t h in k ing and communication. New York: Academic Press.

Raudebaugh, R. A. (1988) . Teaching freehand drawing and v i s u a l i z a - t io n . Journal of In d u s t r ia l Technology, 4 j 2 ) , 8-22 .

Rodriguez, W. E. (1990). A dual approach to engineering design v i s u a l i z a t i o n . Engineering Design Graphics Journal , 5 4 ( 3 ) , 36- 43.

Ross, W. A. (1991) . 3-D so l id modeling: Making the model to drawing in te r fa c e seamless. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 5 5 (1 ) , 16-23.

Sadowski, M. A. (1989) . Right brain th in k ing . Proceedings of the mid-year meeting of the American Society fo r Engineering Educat ion /Engineer ing Design Graphics Divis ion (pp. 53 -59 ) . Washing- ton, DC: American Socie ty fo r Engineering Education.

Samuels, M. (1975) . Seeing with the mind's eye. New York: RandomHouse.

Schotta, L. W. (1984) . The e f fe c t of selected in s t ru c t io n in t a c t u a l - v i s u a l perception and idea sketching on the visual imagerya b i l i t y o f undergraduate students enro l led in basic engineering graphics (Doctoral d is s e r t a t io n , Temple U n ive rs i ty , 1984). Pis- ser ta t io n Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 45 , 439A.

Sexton, T. J. (1989). Analyzing and choosing tes ts designed tomeasure spa t ia l v i s u a l i z a t i o n . Proceedings of the mid-year meeting of the American Socie ty f o r Engineering Educat ion/Engineering' Design Graphics Div is ion (pp. 79-94 ) . Washington, DC: AmericanSociety f o r Engineering Education.

SPSS, Inc. (1990) . S t a t i s t i c a l package f o r the social sciences[Computer program]. Chicago, IL: Author.

Stewart, M. D. (1991, June). The impact of so l id modeling infreshman EDG courses on the t r a d i t i o n a l CAD educational sequence. V is u a l i z a t io n and Research I . Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Society fo r Engineering Education, New Orleans, LA.

S u l l iv a n , F. V. (1964 ) . An experimental study o f the e f fec t iveness of two methods of teaching orthographic pro ject ion in terms of


re ten t ion and t r a n s f e r (Doctoral d is s e r ta t io n , Un ive rs i ty of I l l i n o i s , 1964) . D is s e r ta t io n Abstracts I n te r n a t io n a l , 25, 1037.

Sweetland, R. C . , & Keyser, D. J. (E ds . ) . (1983) . Tes ts . KansasC i ty , MO: Test Corporation of America.

Vander Wal l , W. J. (1991 ) . A comparative study on the e f f e c t i v e ness and inf luence of required supplemental video teaching upon students' grades, course completion, v is u a l i z a t io n p ro f ic ien cy , and course a t t i t u d e s . En g in e er in g Design Graphics J o u r n a l , 5 5 (2 ) , 10-17.

Weischadle, D. E . , & Weischadle, M. P. (1987, September). Corpora te education: America's growth industry. In d u s t r ia l Educat i o n , pp. 36-38.

Wiley, S. E. (1990) . An hierarchy of visual learning. Engineering Design Graphics Journal , 5 4 (3 ) , 30-35.

Wilson, G. 0. (1983) . Hemispheric dominance and student performance in an engineering-graphics course (Doctoral d is s e r ta t io n , U n ive rs i ty of Tennessee, 1982) . D isse r ta t ion Abstracts In te rn a t io n a l , 43, 2952A-2953A.


Documents

Spatial Visualization and Leadership in Teaching Multiview