1. Professional Development Webinar
January 27, 2011
2 PM EST
ENGAGE Research-based Strategies to Retain Undergraduates in Engineering Part 3: Improving Students’ Spatial Visualization Skills

2. Housekeeping Information
The webinar will use Voice Over Internet. If the sound quality is not good, a teleconference line is available:
To be notified of future webinars:
Sign up for the Knowledge Center newsletter at:
Survey following webinar—please respond!

3. How to Ask a Question
Participant microphones are muted for webinar quality
Type your question in the “Question” space in the webinar control panel
A presenter will respond as time allows

4. Who’s on the Call Today
We have almost 200 registered participants from around the world!
Thank you to IEEE WIE, ASEE WIED, ASEE ERM, NAPE Stem Equity Pipeline, PGEList, National Girls Collaborative Project and others for promoting!

5. What’s WEPAN? www.wepan.org
WEPAN is the nation’s leading organization for transforming culture in engineering education to promote the success of all women.
Translates research into practice
Inspires a network of advocates
Mobilizes diverse stakeholders
Fosters diversity in engineering graduates

6. WEPAN Knowledge Center http://wepanknowledgecenter.org
Goal: Increase the number, scope and effectiveness of initiatives to advance women in engineering.
Catalogued and fully cited resources
Research, reports, data and statistics, agenda papers, bibliographies, best practices, key programs, and more—1,000+
Online Professional Community
Network, collaborate, identify experts, share information
Special online events
Feature WKC Professional Community and networking opportunities
Use the research, information & data, Submit & suggest resources, Share the WKC with colleagues

7. Webinar Series – Part 3: Improving Spatial Visualization Skills
Host: Diane Matt, Co-PI ENGAGE; Executive Director, WEPAN (Women in Engineering ProActive Network)
Moderator: Susan Metz, Principal Investigator, ENGAGE; Stevens Institute of Technology
Presenter: Sheryl Sorby, Ph.D., Professor; Director, Engineering Education Innovation Research Group; Director, Solid Mechanics Area, Michigan Tech
Funded by the National Science Foundation. Opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the funder.

8. ENGAGE is an extension services project, funded by NSF GSE (Research on Gender in Science & Engineering).
These projects are modeled after the Cooperative Extension Services of Land Grant Universities
They provide useful, practical and research-based information to those who can use it.
The goal is to put more research into practice.
Funded by the National Science Foundation. Opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the funder.

9. Goal
To increase the capacity of engineering schools to retain undergraduate students (1st and 2nd year) by facilitating the implementation of research-based strategies to improve the educational experience.

10. Research-Based Strategies
#1 Improve and increase interaction between faculty and students.
#2 Use everyday examples in engineering to
teach technical concepts.
#3 Improve spatial visualization skills of
students with weak skills.

11. POLL: Who is on the call today?11

12. Our Featured Presenter
Sheryl Sorby, Ph.D.
Professor and Director, Engineering Education Innovation Research Group; Director, Solid Mechanics Area,
Michigan Tech

13. Preparing the Next Generation of Innovators
Published by the National Science Foundation in 2010
Innovators typically have strong spatial skills as well as strong:
Verbal Skills
Math Skills
Expressed the need to look merely beyond verbal and math skills when identifying STEM talent

14. As quickly as you can, determine the correct response to:
Problem taken from the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test: Rotations (Guay 1976)

15. Poll A:
How do you feel about spatial problems like this?

16. Poll B:
What do you think about spatial skills?

17. Poll B was a trick question:
All of the preceding statements were FALSE
Not all of your students have well-developed spatial skills
Spatial skills are important to success in engineering
The spatial skills of women typically lag behind those of the men
Holds true for students from lower SES groups, too
Spatial skills can be learned!!!!!

18. A significant portion of students fail the PSVT:R
Approximately 10-15% of Michigan Tech students fail the PSVT:R during orientation each year
~10% of the male students
~30% of the female students
Nearly one third!

19. From studies conducted with 64,000 professionals:
Source: Johnson O’Connor Research Foundation

20. Gender Differences are Robust and Consistent

21. Spatial Skills Course
Initially developed with funding from the National Science Foundation
Second grant obtained to develop multimedia software and a workbook for developing spatial skills
Offered continuously since 1993
From , students who failed the PSVT:R (60% or lower) during orientation were encouraged to enroll in the course
Beginning in 2009, students who fail are required to enroll in course

22. Course Format One 1.5-hour lab session per week for one credit
Short mini-lecture (~10-15 minutes) at beginning of session
Students work through software module in teams of two
Students complete workbook pages for remainder of time

23. Multimedia Software

24. Assessment of Gains on Spatial Skills Test-PSVT:R
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Gain
Significance of Gain
Original Course
186
50.5
76.9
26.4
p<0.0001
Modified Course
157
48.3
73.7
25.4

25. Long Term Assessments
Several longitudinal studies have been conducted over the years to look at the long-term impact of the spatial skills course
Grades in key courses have been examined
Retention rates tracked

26. General Results from Longitudinal Studies
Students who failed the PSVT:R and enrolled in the spatial skills course, earn better grades in:
Calculus (and Pre-Calculus)
Chemistry
Computer Science
Engineering/Graphics
Physics
Overall
when compared to students who failed the PSVT:R and did not enroll in the course

27. For Example: Average GPAs for Students who initially failed the PSVT:R—2000-2002
Course
Enrolled in Spatial Course
Did not Enroll in Spatial Course
Significance of Diff of Means
Engineering I
3.04
2.62
p<0.0005
Engineering II
2.94
2.71
p<0.001
Calculus I
2.78
2.35
Chemistry I
2.70
2.56
p<0.1
Physics I
2.25
2.02
p<0.02
Overall
3.00
2.64

28. Additional Results
Students who failed the PSVT:R and enrolled in the spatial skills course earned better grades than
Those who failed the PSVT:R and did not take the course
Those who passed the PSVT:R with a score between 60 and 70%

29. For example: Average GPAs in courses 1996-98 and 2000-02
Failed PSVT:R, enrolled in course
Passed PSVT:R with score 60-70%
Failed PSVT:R, did not enroll in course
Pre-Calculus
2.74
2.41
p=0.002
2.19
p<0.0001
Calculus I
2.59
2.48
N.S.
2.25
p=0.004
Chemistry I
2.64
2.47
p=0.02
2.31
Computer Science I
3.16
2.88
2.53
Overall
3.01
2.84
p=0.0005
2.63

30. Self-Selection Bias?
Prior to 2009, students who enrolled in the course chose to do so
Results could be influenced by self-selection bias
VERY preliminary results show a positive impact on grades, for students who got the spatial skills training

31. Fall 2009 Data—no self selection
Course
Passed PSVT:R score of 60-70%
Failed PSVT:R and took spatial skills course
Engineering Ia
2.26
N.S.
2.32
Engineering Ib
(strong graphics/CAD content)
2.40
p=0.009
3.06
Pre-Calculus
2.12
2.24
Calculus I
2.16
p=0.026
2.62

32. Retention rates
In general, students who failed the PSVT:R and enrolled in the spatial skills course were retained:
At the university
Within engineering
at higher rates than:
Those who failed the PSVT:R and did not enroll in the course
Those who passed the PSVT:R with a score of 60-70%
Particularly true for women!

33. For example: Retention Rates 1996-1998

34. For Example: Retention Rates at University by Gender
Women
Men
Failed PSVT:R-Took course
Failed PSVT:R-Did not take course
Passed PSVT:R score of 60% or higher
Retention Rate
87.4%
71.1%
83.2%
76.8%
70.0%
73.4%
Retention Rate
88.9%
68.3%
87.2%
75.3%
69.0%
72.4%

35. Conclusions
Well-developed math and verbal skills are readily recognized as necessary to success in engineering
According to a recent publication by the National Science Board, perhaps we should add “spatial skills” to this list
We don’t encourage students not ready for calculus to enroll in calculus in their first semester
Shouldn’t spatial skills training be available for those who need the help?
By implementing a course to help students develop their spatial skills, we believe we have helped them to be more successful in engineering

36. What should you do?
Assess the spatial skill level of your incoming engineering students
Identify those with weak skills
Target your efforts at those students

37. What shouldn’t you do?
Provide spatial skills training to all of your students
Those who don’t need it may be bored
Those who do need it may become even more discouraged
Self-efficacy will be diminished
Offer voluntary spatial skills help sessions
Voluntary supplemental instruction never works

38. Formats for Implementation that will work
Offer course for credit for spatial skills training
Require supplemental instruction sessions for students with weak skills
Similar to requiring tutoring sessions for students with weak math skills
Provide spatial skills training as part of a summer bridge program
Integrate spatial skills training into a required course
Caution! Use this approach only if most of your students have weak spatial skills and NOT if only a small percentage of students require this training.

39. A final reflection……
Engineering faculty are hesitant to add one credit to an already full curriculum
Which is better? Which is more costly?
Asking students to take one extra credit that improves their chances of success in engineering by a significant margin OR
Ignoring the problem and hoping your students will survive to graduation

40. Questions ????

42. 2010 ENGAGE Schools Kettering University Purdue University
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Stevens Institute of Technology
The University of Texas at Austin
The Ohio State University
University of Louisville
University of Maryland
University of South Carolina
Virginia Tech

43. 2011 ENGAGE Schools Arizona State University Boise State University
California State University, Fullerton
Louisiana Tech University
New Jersey Institute of Technology
North Carolina State University
University of Colorado, Boulder
University of Dayton
University of Illinois, Chicago
University of New Mexico

44. For More Information:
Website:

45. Thank You! We will E-mail the PowerPoint to you
We will the link to the recorded webinar to you—share with your colleagues!
Sign up for more webinar notifications at: