Relationship between Gender, Spatial Visualization, Spatial Orientation, Flexibility of Closure Abilities and Performance related to Plane Geometry Subject among Sixth Grade Students

Abstract

The plane geometry subject includes concepts as points, lines, planes, space and their relations. Representations of three-dimensional objects by means of two-dimensional diagrams bring the difficulties of identification of their properties. Three subfactors of spatial ability were identified as the main variables in the performances of students related to plane geometry subject. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between gender, spatial visualization, spatial orientation, flexibility or speed of closure abilities and the performances related to the plane geometry subject of the sixth grade students. The sample of the study consisted of 120 sixth grade students. In the first part of the study, the reliability and the validity studies of the representative tests were carried out. In the second part, correlation analyses were carried out. Significant correlations were found between each factor except gender. For clarifying the relationships between more than one factor multiple regression analyses were used. The results showed that the three predictor variables explained the 35 per cent of the variance in plane geometry test scores. However, degree of contribution of each factor differed. The relative impact of spatial orientation ability (B=. 41) was higher than the spatial visualization ability (B=. 26) followed by the flexibility of closure ability (B=. 05). As a result of correlation analysis, gender was not taken into the regression analyses. The plane geometry subjects in the National curriculum were analyzed and related suggestions were carried out in line with the research findings. 

Keywords

• Spatial ability
• spatial visualization
• spatial orientation
• flexibility or speed of closure ability
• plane geometry

Relationship between Gender, Spatial Visualization, Spatial Orientation, Flexibility of Closure Abilities and Performance related to Plane Geometry Subject among Sixth Grade Students

Abstract

The plane geometry subject includes concepts as points, lines, planes, space and their relations. Representations of three-dimensional objects by means of two-dimensional diagrams bring the difficulties of identification of their properties. Three subfactors of spatial ability were identified as the main variables in the performances of students related to plane geometry subject. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between gender, spatial visualization, spatial orientation, flexibility or speed of closure abilities and the performances related to the plane geometry subject of the sixth grade students. The sample of the study consisted of 120 sixth grade students. In the first part of the study, the reliability and the validity studies of the representative tests were carried out. In the second part, correlation analyses were carried out. Significant correlations were found between each factor except gender. For clarifying the relationships between more than one factor multiple regression analyses were used. The results showed that the three predictor variables explained the 35 per cent of the variance in plane geometry test scores. However, degree of contribution of each factor differed. The relative impact of spatial orientation ability (B=. 41) was higher than the spatial visualization ability (B=. 26) followed by the flexibility of closure ability (B=. 05). As a result of correlation analysis, gender was not taken into the regression analyses. The plane geometry subjects in the National curriculum were analyzed and related suggestions were carried out in line with the research findings.

Keywords

• Spatial ability
• spatial visualization
• spatial orientation
• flexibility or speed of closure ability
• plane geometry

References

1. Ardaç, D., & Erktin, E. (1996). Fen ve matematik başarısını açıklayıcı bir model çalışması. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Araştırma Fonu, No. 94DO104, İstanbul.
2. Ben-Haim, D., Lappan, G. & Houang, R. T. (1985). Visualizing rectangular solids made of small cubes: analyzing and effecting students’ performances. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16, 389-409.
3. Braine, L. G., Schauble, L. , Kugelmass, S., & Winter, A. (1993). Representation of depth by children: Spatial strategies and lateral biases. Developmental Psychology, 29( 3), 466-479.
4. Butler, D. L. (1982). Predicting the perception of three-dimensional objects from the geometrical information in drawings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8( 5), 674-692.
5. Caplan, P. J., MacPerson, G. M., & Tobin, P. (1985). Do sex related differences in spatial abilities exist? American Psychologist, 40( 7), 786-799.
6. Connor, J. M., Schackman, M. & Serbin, L. A. (1978). Sex-related differences in response to practice on a visual-spatial test and generalization to a related test. Child Development 49, 24-29.
7. Cooper, M. (1992). Three-dimensional symmetry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 179-202.
8. Copeland, R. W. (1979). How children learn mathematics: Teaching implications of Piaget’s research. New York: Macmillan.

9. Delialioğlu, Ö., & Aşkar, P. (1999). Contribution of students’ mathematical skills and spatial ability to the achievement in secondary school physics. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16-17, 34-39.
10. D’Zmura, M. (1995). Spatial thinking. UC Irvine Psychology 9B Lecture 15 Notes, http://aris.ss.uci.edu/cogsci/courses/psych9b/lectures/lec15notes.html.
11. Eliot, J. (1999). Spatial Research Database. Office of Purchase of University of Maryland.
12. Eliot, J., & Czarnolewski, M. (1999). A composite Gestalt completion test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 89, 294-300.
13. Florida Sunshine School Curriculum, (1997). Geometry and spatial sense: Standard 2, Retrieved from http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~jflake/math/GeomSp/GSStand2.html.
14. Gardner, H., (1999). Çoklu zeka : Görüşmeler ve makaleler. İstanbul: Enka Okulları.
15. Graham, K. M., (1999). Rubric Examples: The Geometry Classroom, New Mexico Regional Educational Technology Assistance Program. Retrieved from
16. http://reta.nmsu.edu/ IMDS99/curriculum/rubrics/rubvhiele.html.
17. Hadfield, O. D., Martin, J. V., & Wooden, S. (1992). Mathematics Anxiety and Learning Style of the Navajo Middle School Student. School Science and Mathematics, 4, 171-176.
18. Hyde, J. S., Geiringer, E. R. & Yen, W. (1975). On the empirical relation between spatial ability and sex differences in other aspects of cognitive performance. Multivariate behavioral research, 10, 289-301.
19. Johnson, E. S., & Meade, A. C. (1987). Developmental patterns of spatial ability: An early sex difference. Child Development, 58, 725-740.
20. Kali, Y., & Orion, N. (1996). Spatial abilities of high-school students in the perception of geologic structures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33( 4), 369-391.
21. Keith, K. L. (1997). Nurture your child’s visual-spatial intelligence. Parenting of K-6 Children, Retrieved from http://childparenting.tqn.com/home/parenting/ childparenting/library/weekly /aa091397.htm.
22. Liben, L.S., & Golbeck, S. L. (1980). Sex differences in performance on piagetian spatial tasks: Differences in competence or performance? Child Development, 51, 594-597.
23. Liben, L.S., & Golbeck, S. L. (1984). Performance on Piagetian horizontality and verticality tasks: Sex-related differences in knowledge of relevant physical phenomena, Developmental Psychology, 20( 4), 595-606.
24. Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development,56, 1479-1498.
25. Maccoby, E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1994). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
26. Mackenzie, D. (1999). Explaining the mathematical gender gap. Academic Press Daily Insight. Retrieved from http://www.apnet.com/inscight/07191999/grapha.htm.
27. Mason, M. (1998). The Van Hiele levels of geometric understanding, professional handbook for teachers, Geometry: Explorations and applications, McDougal Inc.
28. McGee, M. G., (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal and neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin, 86( 5), 889-918.
29. Mearsa, (1998). Spatial Intelligence Home Page, Retrieved from http://www.ul.ie/~mearsa/9519211.
30. Meeker, M., Meeker, R., & Roid, G. H. (1985). Structure of intellect learning abilities test (SOI-LA), Western Psychological Services.
31. Melancon, J. (1994). Developing visualization and spatial skills, 18th Annual Conference NAD, Retrieved from
32. http://www.umkc.edu/centers/cad/nade/ nadedocs/94conpap/jmcpap94.htm.
33. NCTM-National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, (1989). The curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics, Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education, http://enc.org/clasroom/lessons/docs/enc 2184/nf_2184.htm.
34. New Jersey Department of Education, (1996). Mathematics Standards and Progress Indicators, Retrieved from http://njw.injersey.com/schools/NJDOE/ 09mathstan4_07.html.
35. Nuttall, R., Casey, M. B., Peazaris, E., & Benhow, C. P. (1995). The influence of spatial ability on gender differences in mathematics college entrance test scores across diverse samples. Developmental Psychology, 31(4), 697-705.
36. Ontario Ministry of Education, (1997). The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1-8: Mathematics, Geometry and Spatial Sens. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/.
37. Richmond, P. G. (1980). A limited sex differences in spatial test scores with a preadolescent sample. Child Development, 51, 601-602.
38. Serpell, R., & Deregowski, J. B. (1980). The skill of pictorial perception: An interpretation of cross-cultural evidence. International Journal of Psychology, 15, 145-180.
39. SICCAR Point Preview Spatial Task Test, (1995). Retrieved from http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~paulus/ Work/Geospreports/forma.htm.
40. Shawal, M. A. (1999). An investigation of the relationship between spatial ability and mathematics learning for Yemeni students. UMI ProQuest Digital Dissertations, Retrieved from http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/ fullcit/9923693.
41. Sherman, J. A. (1967). Problem of sex differences in space perception and aspects of intellectual functioning. Psychological Review, 74, 290-299.
42. Sherman, J. A. (1980). Mathematics, spatial visualization and related factors: Changes in girls and boys, Grade 8-11. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(4), 467-482.
43. Sternberg, R. J. (1982). Advances in the psychology of human intelligence. London: Lawrance Erlbaum.
44. Tartre, L. A., & Fennema, E. (1995). Mathematics achievement and gender: A longitudinal study of selected cognitive and affective variables grades 6-12. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 28( 3), 199-217.
45. Weber, D. P. (1976). Sex differences in cognition: A function of maturation rate? Science, 192, 572-574.
46. Witting, M. A., & Petersen, A. C. (1979). Sex related differences in cognitive functioning: Developmental issues, New York: Academic Press.