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¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitativer?·q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? In making sense of FUSE challenges, students used a variety of social and material resources in coordination, with other students the most-used social resource (44 percent) and adults used infrequently (9 percent). → 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?
Categorical coding of resource use during FUSE activities found "other students (44 percent of total instances of resource use) and adults (9 percent)". Percentages are descriptive; no test is reported.
"Social resources included other students (44 percent of total instances of resource use) and adults (9 percent). Material resources included help videos (10 percent), written instructions (7 percent), and diagrams from the FUSE website (3 percent), tinkering with physical or digital materials (28 percent), and sketching or working from sketches (1 percent)."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Spatial Ability — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- 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 — related
- Different FUSE challenges facilitated different types of spatial reasoning, with CAD-software challenges eliciting relatively high intrinsic-dynamic and extrinsic-dynamic reasoning — related
- Challenges requiring coordinated movement of multiple people, representations, and objects elicited correspondingly high frequencies of extrinsic-dynamic spatial reasoning — related
- Students' makerspace knowledge practices are mediated multimodally by discourse, materials, embodied actions, and physical space — a broader claim this one bears on
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
peers-over-adults-spatial-resources |
title |
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 |
description |
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 |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2019 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-24 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — ramey-2019 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.