Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Dissertations Graduate College 4-1992 Spatial Visualization and Leadership in Teaching Multiview Orthographic Projection: An Alternative to the Glass Box Mark A. Curtis Western Michigan University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons Recommended Citation Curtis, Mark A., "Spatial Visualization and Leadership in Teaching Multiview Orthographic Projection: An Alternative to the Glass Box" (1992). Dissertations. 1936. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/1936 This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SPATIAL VISUALIZATION AND LEADERSHIP IN TEACHING MULTIVIEW ORTHOGRAPHIC PROJECTION: AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE GLASS BOX by Mark A. Curtis A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Department of Educational Leadership Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan April 1992 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. SPATIAL VISUALIZATION AND LEADERSHIP IN TEACHING MULTIVIEW ORTHOGRAPHIC PROJECTION: AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE GLASS BOX Mark A. Curtis, Ed.D. Western Michigan University, 1992 The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of using one instructional method versus another in teaching multiview orthographic projection to college students possessing varied spa­ tial visualization abilities. Two instructional methods were used: (1) the traditional hinged glass box method and (2) an unconven­ tional method in which an object is placed in the middle of a bowl/ hemispheric shape where the front view of the object is seen by looking directly into the bowl. Other views are developed by slid­ ing the object along the surface of the bowl until they are at right angle to the viewer's line of sight. The independent variable manipulated was the instructional method and the dependent variable was the spatial visualization development of students as demon­ strated through their a b ility to mentally solve complex multiview orthographic projection problems. The subjects were mostly freshmen and sophomores majoring in engineering technology enrolled in two intact basic engineering graphics classes at Ferris State University, Big Rapids, Michigan. The sample size was 92. The Differential Aptitude Test, Space Rela­ tions: Form T (DAT-SR-T, Bennett, Seashore, & Wesman, 1972) was Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. administered to all subjects. Scores attained on the DAT-SR-T were used to divide the subjects into three groups and four visualization aptitude levels. Subjects were also given a 12-item pretest for multiview orthographic projection knowledge, taken from the Western Michigan University (Kalamazoo) Career Guidance Inventory Part 4 (Nowak, Walter, Vander Ark, & Henry, 1980). Group 1 received 2 hours of instruction using glass box imagery, Group 2 received 2 hours of bowl imagery, and Group 3 re­ ceived no formal orthographic instruction. Hypotheses were formu­ lated and tested for significant differences between treatment and control groups for each aptitude level. The 12-item orthographic test was given to all subjects to record spatial visualization abil­ ity gains. The data collected were analyzed using the Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS, Inc., 1990) software, Release 4.1. No significant difference in spatial visualization gain scores was found between treatment groups or aptitude levels at the .05 level. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality o f this reproduction is dependentupon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Order Number 9222441 Spatial visualization and leadership in teaching multiview orthographic projection: An alternative to the glass box Curtis, Mark A., Ed.D. Western Michigan University, 1992 UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS During the preparation of this dissertation, I have been given guidance and support by many individuals and organizations. I wish to give special thanks to my advisor and committee chairman, Dr. Kenneth Dickie for his assistance, direction, and support over the past 6 years; and to my committee members, Dr. David Cowden and Dr. Richard Munsterman, for their recommendations and advice. Also, appreciation is expressed to Dr. Edgar Kelley and Dr. Uldis Smidchens for their encouragement during the developmental stages of my dissertation proposal writing. Mark Nickel of Western Michigan University's Human Subjects Institutional Review Board was also very helpful. Dr. Gerard Nowak also gave many fine suggestions and much assistance relating to instrumentation and methodology. Dr. Fred Swartz of Ferris State University is also much appreciated for his help in evaluation of the research findings. I am also thankful that Lee Pakko w illingly agreed to take on the task of typing. The Administration of Ferris State University is appreciated for the support they provided me through a one-term sabbatical leave. I also wish to thank many of my close friends for their moral support, especially Virginia VanWie, Dr. Janet Towne, Doug and Ellen Haneline, Manuel and Eloisa Puerta, and David Murray. And fin a lly, I am most grateful for the love and encouragement given to me by my i i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Acknowledgments--Continued parents, Lawrence and Marlene Curtis; my children, Aaron and Leah and my wife, Margaret, during the completion of this study. Mark A. Curtis i ii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................................... ii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the Study ......................................................................... 3 The Variables .......................................................................... 3 Educational Leadership ................................................................ 4 Need for the Study ......................................................................... 5 The Scope and Limits of the Study ....................................... 8 II. RELEVANT LITERATURE .............................................................................. 9 Comparative Instructional Methods ....................................... 9 Summary of Research on Instructional Methods ................. 17 Studies of Individual Cognitive Difference .................. 18 Summary of Research on Cognitive Characteristies ... 21 Psychological Constructs ........................................................... 21 Summary of Research on PsychologicalConstructs . 23 The Hinged Glass Box .................................................................... 23 The Bowl/Hemisphere ......................................................................