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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · qualitative r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Categorical coding of multimodal idea units yielded 9393 instances of spatial reasoning, averaging over 100 per hour, across 13 different types spanning all four quadrants of the two-by-two matrix. → Ramey 2019 q2 i? Extrinsic-static skills were most common (57 percent of instances), followed by intrinsic-static (24 percent), extrinsic-dynamic (11 percent), and intrinsic-dynamic (8 percent), so making elicits far more than the intrinsic-dynamic skills psychometric tests typically measure. → Ramey 2019 (2)

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?

Qualitative categorical coding of video from a cognitive ethnography of five FUSE classrooms found "9393 instances of spatial reasoning demonstrated through talk, gesture, or object manipulation". The count is descriptive; no effect size is printed.

"Through categorical coding of multimodal idea units, we found 9393 instances of spatial reasoning demonstrated through talk, gesture, or object manipulation – an average of over 100 per hour or almost two per minute."

Ramey 2019 (2)¶

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?

Coding based on the Uttal et al./Newcombe and Shipley taxonomy showed students used "13 different types of spatial reasoning, spanning all four quadrants". Percentages are descriptive; no inferential test or effect size is reported.

"Students engaged in 13 different types of spatial reasoning, spanning all four quadrants of the two by two matrix (see Figure 1). The most commonly used were extrinsic-static skills (57 percent of instances of spatial reasoning), followed by intrinsic-static (24 percent), extrinsic-dynamic (11 percent), and intrinsic-dynamic skills (8 percent)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Spatial Ability — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Different FUSE challenges facilitated different types of spatial reasoning, with CAD-software challenges eliciting relatively high intrinsic-dynamic and extrinsic-dynamic reasoning — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Challenges requiring coordinated movement of multiple people, representations, and objects elicited correspondingly high frequencies of extrinsic-dynamic spatial reasoning — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• 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