Sketching, Assessment, and Persistence in Spatial Visualization Training On a Touchscreen

摘要

Spatial visualization training has been shown to increase GPAs and graduation rates in science, technology and math. Furthermore, prior research has correlated sketching on paper to improvement on the standardized spatial visualization test PSVT:R. However, to integrate additional content into an already full curriculum is challenging. To make spatial visualization easier to teach and more engaging to learn, an app was developed in which students draw orthographic and isometric assignments on a touchscreen. Each sketch is graded by an algorithm, and if the sketch is incorrect the students are provided with the option to try again or get personalized guidance from the app. This allows students to work independently and receive immediate feedback. In 2014, a trial using the App with college engineering students showed that it increased students' performance on the PSVT:R. The 2014 trial also showed that student persistence, as measured by the number of times they tried a sketch again without asking for help, correlated to increases in the PSVT:R. Since 2014, the App was modified significantly. The assignments were rewritten to take advantage of the touchscreen interface, and persistence was encouraged using gamification and by providing varying levels of guidance. Three trials were conducted with the updated app in college engineering courses; a 2016 a trial in an elective class (n=37), a 2017 trial in an elective class (n=32), and a 2017 trial in a required class where the app was assigned as homework (n=137). Overall the persistence metric increased from 40% in 2014 to 77% in spring 2017 (an increase of 93%). Larger gains occurred among students who entered the class with low PSVT:R scores (70% and below). These students are considered "at-risk" in terms of low graduation rates due to low spatial visualization ability. In 2014, 23% of these at-risk students improved to the point of moving out of the at-risk category. In 2017, this percentage increased to 82% and 67% (an improvement of 257% and 191%). This paper describes the modifications to the app and compares the 2014 trials to those conducted in 2016 and 2017.