Literature Review
By, Virginia Valerio Lambert
Social Psychology – 2021
Introduction: The authors attempt to contrast past and present studies on spatial reasoning. Spatial reasoning has been identified as instrumental for students to thrive in science, technology, engineering, math (STEM) related fields. What the researchers have discovered is that spatial reasoning is best developed through making activities. Authors indicate that past studies on spatial reasoning have largely measured via traditional laboratory studies and focused on science, technology, engineering, math (STEM). This body of research has expanded their research to include behavioral observation techniques and include making activities, are exercises requiring mental and physical manipulation and encourage growth of skills that can then transfer to STEAM related fields. With the theory that making activities exercises and measuring outcomes, they can help round out research on the topic with a potential missing piece of the puzzle. Their method for doing so is by utilizing a trade tool that provides several options for interests, opportunity for students to utilize peers and aid sources other than a teacher (traditional method), and by using Computer Aid Design (CAD) technology, afford them an opportunity to record and iterate progress for evaluation.
Evaluation: The authors did make clear their hypothesis and how they intended to achieve their research and findings. While their explanation was clear, the question I have is why CAD? They do make mention of the importance of making activity can and does take place in artistic endeavors in the traditional sense.
Method: Researchers used technology, CAD to gauge and measure how well students reasoned with a task while utilizing technology. The tools focused on approximately 30 different STEM related exercises dealing with topics such as video games to jewelry making. The exercises were intended to be student/peer driven with minimal adult direction. The concept and delivery methods are more hands on versus theories taught traditionally. The software utilized is considered open-sourced, available to anyone with a computer and internet access. Participants were a defined as a diverse population of fifth and sixth grade students from a suburban school district. Researchers employed a behavioral observation approach through videotaping, categorical coding of behaviors and choices, as well as history collected by program software. As for the procedure, researchers provided a venue for students to essentially make their own choice on topic, learn how to achieve their goal through either media or peers, and were given tiers of difficulty in their challenges. The supposed benefit of using the specific tool and approach was that it was considered a heterogenous tool and the longevity of study would provide reliable data to measure.
Evaluation: My first impression is why Fuse studios/CAD software to measure something that can be achieved through traditional art lessons? The tools were highly specific to Fuse, i.e. online studio, and the physical tools (3D printers, vinyl cutters, circuit boards) were stored at Fuse studios. The authors conceded that program of this nature was representative within the school district and not the norm. This makes me question the viability of said program in any other school district across the United States given socio-demographic considerations, not to mention administrations necessity to buy-in to a product and method choice. If not widespread, this could invite disparity.
Results: The researchers determined that measuring spatial reasoning through the lens of making activities using FUSE activities contributed to four distinct understandings. Students made use of peers and media more frequently than they would normally in a more traditional setting; different projects afforded use of cognitive skills they may not have made use of prior to such a challenge; showcased how challenges with iteration possibilities allow for improvements and learning opportunities contributing to distributed spatial sensemaking and building upon knowledge to draw upon for future use in many academic aspects such as math and science. Lastly, the opportunity for challenges provided growth minded learning. The researchers highlighted the differences between previous research such as psychometric tests versus observational studies. Additionally, the most important emphases were creating an opportunity for students to physically handle, consider, think, and implement a thought process to solve a real-world project as opposed to reading about or hearing a lecture.
Evaluation: I felt as though the authors did a fine job measuring qualitative data to reinforce their theory that making activities help students grapple with instances where their cognitive skills could be employed, exercised, and strengthened. I still feel as though CAD software is not the solution. While it can be a valuable tool and should be used whenever possible, I question whether we are once more steering enrichment opportunities designed to grow spatial reasoning explicitly towards STEM once more. I know that they mention several times how instrumental hands-on making activities are critical, this is easily achieved through time tested Fine Arts in curriculum.
Discussion: The authors make a strong case for the why and how of improving spatial reasoning in academics. They site how hands on efforts garner better and long-lasting results as opposed to static approaches of the past. This opportunity afforded students a say in their exercise, an opportunity to choose resources of which to use, comprehension, implementation, articulation, understanding, problem solving, perseverance, thinking creatively and critically, and through self-reliance in most cases, realization of newly acquired skills to tackle a task which contribute to not only positive self-esteem, but ability to draw on their experience for subsequent tasks. Researchers provide evidence in support of continuing hands-on activities to further not only learning but developing reasoning skills. They offer up their findings as a piece of the puzzle to existing research in the hopes that continued research will help provide a clearer understanding of the necessity for programs such as FUSE to help bridge the existing gap in education to STEAM fields.
Evaluation: As the authors spell out, it all comes down to hands-on making activities for learning. If you want proof of the benefits of making activities, all you need to do is revisit the Renaissance period and the prodigious artists and scientists from that period.
Reference
Ramey, K. E., Reed, S., & Uttal, D. H., (2020). In-FUSE-ing STEAM learning with spatial reasoning: Distributed spatial sensemaking in school-based making activities. American Psychological Association, 112(3), 466-493. doi:10.1037/edu0000422