Some Observations of Problem Solving in Spatial Relations Tests

Abstract

During the past twenty-five years or so, a number of factor-analytic studies have identified a group of tests as belonging to a category which is frequently called Spatial Relations. However, continued use of a single experimental technique may lead to diminishing returns, and new techniques may be needed to develop new kinds of information. The present study was undertaken to find what information could be gained by relatively intensive and extended interviewing. Five SUbjects took part in about two hours of testing and six hours of interviews and discussion. The purpose of this investigation included studying the uses of interviewing as a method as well as studying the nature of spatial relations tests and the abilities they measure. It was observed that the SUbjects expected the test directions to serve a different purpose than the orie they were designed to serve. It was also found that there were differences in the degree to which these subjects treated the problems as exercises in logic or exercises in perception; and it was found that the units of thought and perception varied with the subjects, the problems, and with the subjects' purposes.

A Review of Spatial Ability Literature, Its Connection to Chemistry, and Implications for Instruction

“…As qualitative methods were used (these were and are called "introspective" or "retrospective" reports by subjects), researchers found that subjects did not use the same strategy on specific test items, and often switched strategies based upon item complexity. For example, Myers in 1958 found that subjects reported using imagery techniques (also called gestalt or "wholes") to solve easy surface development problems, and switched to analytic techniques when faced with more complex tasks (42).…”

Concepts, Results, and Applications

“…On spatial tests, which were administered before and after one academic year, the engineering students increased their scores 37% of the distance to the ceiline whereas nonengineering students gained only 13%. However, Myers (1958) found that Naval Cadets trained in mechanical drawing scored no higher on spatial tests than those Cadets who received no training in mechanical drawing.…”

“…The question arises: What is relevant? Blade and Watson sugeested mechanical drawing as a good possibility by Myers (1958) failed to find any advantage for this type of training. The present study addressed that question empirically by observing the independent effects of specific academic courses on spatial improvement.…”

Different Dimensions of Spatial Ability

“…The situation was made more complicated by the rapid proliferation of tests, and by the fact that similar factors were given different names by different analysts and, conversely, identical names were used to describe different factors. As Myers (1958) noted 'Thurstone reported that the distinction between the two most important factors was that "spatial" tests dealt with rigid figures, such as those in the Identical Blocks Test, whereas visualization tests dealt with non-rigid figures, such as in surface development tests. Unfortunately, this distinction does not seem quite so simple, since different populations and different conditions of test administration can produce different factor loadings.…”