Different FUSE challenges facilitated different types of spatial reasoning, with CAD-software challenges eliciting relatively high intrinsic-dynamic and extrinsic-dynamic reasoning¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? FUSE challenges involving CAD software showed relatively high frequencies of both intrinsic-dynamic and extrinsic-dynamic spatial reasoning, indicating that particular technology tools facilitate particular types of spatial reasoning. → Ramey 2019

Evidence¶

Ramey 2019¶

Ramey, K. E., Stevens, R., & Uttal, D. H. (2019). In-FUSE-ing STEAM Learning with Spatial Reasoning: Distributed Spatial Sensemaking in School-based Making Activities. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000422

q2 · i? · qualitative · r?

Analysis of the relative frequency of spatial-reasoning types across challenges (Figure 2 and Appendix) found high intrinsic-dynamic and extrinsic-dynamic reasoning in "FUSE challenges involving CAD software". Frequencies are descriptive; no statistical test is reported.

"First is the relative frequency of both intrinsic-dynamic and extrinsic-dynamic reasoning in FUSE challenges involving CAD software (e.g., 3D You, Keychain Customizer, Print My Ride, Eye Candy, Dream Home, and Dream Home 2). This indicates the importance of particular technology tools in facilitating particular types of spatial reasoning."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Spatial Ability — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Challenges requiring coordinated movement of multiple people, representations, and objects elicited correspondingly high frequencies of extrinsic-dynamic spatial reasoning — related
• During FUSE making activities, students engaged in frequent and diverse spatial reasoning, with 9393 coded instances across 13 types spanning all four quadrants of the spatial-skills matrix — a broader claim this one bears on
• Students drew mainly on peers and materials rather than adults as resources for spatial reasoning, using other students in 44 percent of resource-use instances and adults in 9 percent — related