AbstractMany STEM professions show an unbalanced gender ratio favoring males that can be explained by variables identified by psychological science. Two of these variables include women’s average lower performance in spatial visualization and the assumption that foundational skills are innate instead of learned. In the current on-going study, we worked with local female and minority students who took part in local outreach programs (MCEWISE). The Our Spatial World project has two goals: 1) to assess and train spatial skills and 2) to develop positive attitudes towards spatial skills and STEM fields. A special emphasis is placed on learning self-efficacy and the idea that spatial skills can be learned and improved upon. Overall, participants improved performance on spatial related tasks from pre-test to post-test. They also expressed greater levels of confidence, learning self-efficacy, and interest in STEM fields after the training.

Spatial ThinkingSpatial thinking involves the ability to imagine and manipulate shapes or situations in the mind (Sorby, 2003). Many careers today emphasize the need for strong spatial skills in order to achieve success. Such careers include engineering, the medical fields, and architecture. A meta-analysis by Voyer, Voyer, & Bryden, (1995) asserted that there are at least three types of spatial skills that can be distinguished from one another.

Mental rotation: the ability to mentally manipulate 2 or 3-dimensional objects in order to imagine them in a different perspective or orientation.

Spatial visualization: the ability to manipulate complex spatial information when several stages are needed to produce the correct solution.

Spatial perception: the ability to determine spatial relationships while ignoring distracting information.

ReferencesDweck, C. (2006). Mindset: the new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House.Holmes, N. (2007). Two Mindsets. [Online Image]. Retrieved March 30, 2015 from http://nigelholmes.com/graphic/two-mindsets-stanford-magazine/.McGlone, M., & Aronson, J. (2006). Stereotype threat, identity salience, and spatial reasoning. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 486-493.Piaget J., & Inhelder, B. (1956). The child’s conception of space. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.Shepard, R. N., Feng, C. (1972) A chronometric study of mental paper folding. Cognitive Psychology 3(2), 228-243.Vandenburg, S., & Kuse, A. (1978). Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47(2), 599-604.Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250-270. Wysocki, A. F., & Sorby, S. (2003). Introduction to 3D Spatial Visualization: an active approach. New York, NY: Delmar Learning.

NAVIGATING THE STEM WORLD: PSYCHOLOGICAL NAVIGATING THE STEM WORLD: PSYCHOLOGICAL READINESS, FLEXIBLE MINDSET, AND SELF-EFFICACY IN READINESS, FLEXIBLE MINDSET, AND SELF-EFFICACY IN

SPATIAL PERFORMANCESPATIAL PERFORMANCEMegan A. Harris, William J. Shelstad, Grace E. Waldfogle, Nicholas J. Bowser, Dominik Dodds (Dawn G. Blasko, Heather C. Lum)

Penn State Erie, The Behrend College | School of Humanities and Social Sciences

Self-Efficacy and Mind-SetSelf-efficacy is the extent to which one believes they are able to complete tasks and reach goals. Research in this area has revealed that mind-set plays a large role in feelings of self-efficacy. Those with a fixed mind-set tend to believe that intelligence is static and unchangeable, while those with a growth mind-set see intelligence more as a developable trait (Dweck, 2006; Holmes, 2007).

Women in STEM fieldsStereotype threat occurs when an individual becomes apprehensive that his or her academic performance will validate a generally accepted stereotype about the individual’s group (Steele & Aronson, 1995).

Most research has focused on math performance, but McGlone & Aronson, (2007) examined stereotype threat and performance on a mental rotation task. They found that when women were primed with their ascribed status (that they are female) their spatial performance was poorer than when primed with their achieved status (that they are elite private college students).The following chart shows the representation of women in STEM field professions.

Percentage of Employed STEM Professionals Who Are Women, Selected Professions, 2008Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009, Women in the labor force: A databook (Report 1018) (Washington, DC), Table 11.

MethodAll Minority College Experience and Women in Science and Engineering (MCEWISE) students complete both the pre- and post-tests. After the pre-test, students choose whether or not they would like to complete four additional spatial training sessions before they return for the post-test.

Pre-test: During this one-hour session, students complete mental rotation, water level, paper folding, and spatial working memory tasks via the VIZ website. They also complete demographic, spatial experience, and intelligence mind-set surveys.

Training Sessions: Those who choose to continue their training attend four additional weekly training sessions. These sessions cover isometric and orthographic sketching, flat patterns, and rotation of objects about a single axis (Sorby, 2003). Each 1.5 hour session includes lecture, computer modules (Wysocki, 2003), sketching, and a spatial related activity/game.

Post-test: (see pre-test above)

Results•The results were analyzed using a series of 2x2 Mixed ANOVAs. Planned comparisons were conducted using t-tests. There was a significant main effect of time for Mental Rotation, F(1, 241)=24.087, p=.000, Paper Folding, F(1, 178)=8.873, p=.003, and Water Level, F(1, 235)=101.351, p=.000. •Figure 1 shows percent correct for the Mental Rotation measure. The training group improved significantly, t(141)=6.307, p<.001 while the comparison group did not, t(98)=1.765, p=.081). •A significant difference was found in the Paper Folding measure for the percent correct from pre- to post-test for the training group, t(104)=3.695, p<.001, but not the comparison group, t(74)=.889, p=.377). Refer to Figure 2 for a graphic representation. •The percent correct for the Water Level measure had a significant difference in scores from pre- to post-test for both the training group, t(139)=8.101, p<.001 and the comparison group, t(96)=6.257, p<.001. Figure 3 shows percent correct for the Water Level measure. •There were significant differences in scores for the knowledge and confidence questions from pre- to post-test. Figure 4 shows a graphic representation of these findings. The training group significantly grew in both knowledge and confidence from pre- to post-test, t(70)=7.335, p<.001, t(71)=4.800, p<.001, t(70)=2.401, p<.05, respectively. The comparison group experienced a significant increase in spatial knowledge, t(42)=3.722, p<.001, no difference in spatial confidence, t(41)=.154, p=.878, and a significant decrease in confidence that they could improve their spatial skills, t(42)=3.630, p=.001. •Figure 5 shows mean anxiety scores from pre- to post-test. Both groups started out with similar anxiety levels, t(135)=.352, p=.725, on the pre-test. However, the difference in anxiety level for the post-test was significant. Those in the training group experienced significantly less anxiety than those in the comparison group, t(114)=2.472, p<.05.

Discussion / Implications•Overall, both groups improved scores on the three measures of spatial intelligence from pre-test to post-test. This supports the idea that spatial skills are improvable with practice. While both groups improved on the measures, the comparison group significantly improved only on the Water Level measure. The training group significantly improved scores across the board. •While both groups started with similar anxiety scores, the training group experienced a significant reduction in anxiety prior to the post-test while the comparison group remained approximately the same. Due to the training sessions, the participants may have felt less anxious when faced with the spatial measures.•Both the training group and the comparison group significantly increased their knowledge of spatial skills. •When asked about confidence in their spatial skills, the training group experienced a significant increase in confidence, while the comparison group experienced a significant decrease in confidence. •When asked how confident they were in their ability to improve spatial skills, the training group experienced a significant increase in confidence and the comparison group experienced a significant decrease in confidence. •Based on these results, future educators should take into account student mindset and self-efficacy when presenting new material to their classes.

AcknowledgementsMany thanks to our entire VIZ team and to Dr. Robert Light at the Office of Undergraduate Research at Penn State Behrend for funding our work.

Scores on Spatial Performance Measures

Scores on Intelligence and Anxiety Questions

Figure 5. Mean anxiety scores. Figure 4. Average responses to knowledge and confidence survey questions.

Figure 3. Average percent correct for the Water Level measure. Figure 2. Average percent correct for the Paper Folding measure.

Figure 1. Average percent correct for Mental Rotation measure.