This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois Chicago]

On: 24 October 2014, At: 11:38

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41
Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Educational Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

Effects of Spatial Ability and Instructional Program on

Geometry Achievement
a a a a
Robert D. Hannafin , Mary P. Truxaw , Jennifer R. Vermillion & Yingjie Liu
a
University of Connecticut
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Robert D. Hannafin , Mary P. Truxaw , Jennifer R. Vermillion & Yingjie Liu (2008) Effects of Spatial Ability
and Instructional Program on Geometry Achievement, The Journal of Educational Research, 101:3, 148-157, DOI: 10.3200/
JOER.101.3.148-157

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.101.3.148-157

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or
warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and
views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by
Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary
sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,
expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,
in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Effects of Spatial Ability
and Instructional Program
on Geometry Achievement
ROBERT D. HANNAFIN
MARY P. TRUXAW
University of Connecticut
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 11:38 24 October 2014
ABSTRACT The authors investigated the effects of student
spatial ability, as measured by Raven’s Progressive Colored
Matrices (J. C. Raven, 1938) and type of instructional pro-
gram on geometry achievement. Sixth-grade students worked
through either 6 instructional activities in Geometer’s Sketch-
pad (Key Curriculum Press, 1993), a dynamic geometry
program, or a geometry tutorial, both of which paralleled
Connecticut’s geometry standards. The authors hypothesized
that students working with the activities in Sketchpad would
learn geometry better and that (after controlling for math-
ematics ability) student spatial ability would predict success
in such an environment more reliably than it would in the
tutorial program. However, students with high spatial ability
performed significantly better than did low-spatial learners in
both instructional treatments; students in the Sketchpad treat-
ment scored only marginally higher on the posttest than did
learners in the tutorial condition, despite spending more time
on task. Results have implications for mathematics instructors,
researchers, and computer-based programs.
Keywords: computer-based instruction, dynamic geometry,
middle school mathemtics, spatial ability
R
S
esearchers have advocated using computer tech-
nology to help learners succeed in less traditional
and less structured learning environments (e.g.,
Battista, 2003; Crown, 2003; Cognition and Technology
Group at Vanderbilt [CTGV], 1992; Gardner, Wissick,
Schweder, & Canter, 2003; Kozma, 1994; Quintana et
al., 2004; Scher, 2005). In open-learning environments
(OLEs), for example, learners are provided with varying
amounts of support for deciding which information they
need to learn, how to learn, and what resources they need
to learn (e.g., Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Land &
Hannafin, 1996; Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Lamon, 1994).
Proponents of OLEs argued that by identifying goals and
constructing meanings, learners become active managers,
rather than passive receptacles, of information.
We examined learning outcomes of students work-
ing in learning environments with Geometer’s Sketch-
pad (Sketchpad; Key Curriculum Press, 1993), a dynamic
geometry program. Dynamic geometry programs are not
148
JENNIFER R. VERMILLION
YINGJIE LIU
University of Connecticut
OLEs in and of themselves; they contain neither informa-
tion nor content. More akin to word processors and spread-
sheets, dynamic geometry programs are tools that one
can use to create and support student-centered learning
environments. To use dynamic geometry programs to foster
student-directed inquiry, instruction needs to be structured
to guide students to the point at which conjectures are
possible (Hollebrands, 2007). One can design activities
to promote learning while not strictly regulating the man-
ner in which they are used. The designers of Geometer’s
Sketchpad, for example, recommend that through a series
of structured activities, learners make conjectures as they
“click and drag” geometric shapes. Many advocates of that
type of learning environment also recommend that stu-
dents work collaboratively to formulate theories and draw
their own conclusions (e.g., CTGV, 1992).
Many educators and researchers believe that dynamic
geometry programs can support higher order thinking skills
such as generalization (e.g., Knuth & Hartman, 2005; Vin-
cent, 2005). The National Council of Teachers of Math-
ematics (2000) advocated for dynamic geometry programs:
“Middle-grades students should explore a variety of geo-
metric shapes and examine their characteristics. Students
can conduct these explorations using materials such as
geoboards, dot paper, multiple-length cardboard strips with
hinges, and dynamic geometry software to create two-dimen-
sional shapes” (p. 233). Battista (2002) found that interac-
tive geometry programs could be used to “build increasingly
sophisticated mental models for thinking about shapes, mod-
els that form the foundation on which genuine understand-
ing of geometry must be constructed” (p. 339). Battista
also argued that using dynamic geometry software develops
geometric thinking in ways consistent with van Hiele’s levels
(van Hiele, 1986, cited in Clements & Battista, 1992).
Zheng (2002) found that dynamic geometry software is
useful for teaching students how to create generalizations,
Address correspondence to Robert D. Hannafin, University of Con-
necticut, Educational Psychology, 249 Glenbrook Road, U2064 249,
Storrs, CT 06269-2064. (E-mail: robert.hannafin@uconn.edu)
Copyright © 2008 Heldref Publications
 January/February 2008 [Vol. 101(No. 3)]
which have long been considered important for help-
ing students think critically. For example, Pólya (1954)
described generalization as “passing from the consideration
of a given set of objects to that of the larger set, contain-
ing the given one” (p. 12). Sinclair and Crespo (2006)
reported that dynamic geometry programs “make it possible
for [elementary] students to learn more important math-
ematics content and processes that are challenging to learn
in other non-technological contexts” (p. 443).
Research has shown that cognitive abilities such as
working memory and spatial ability predict success in
certain learning environments. For example, researchers
have shown that working memory is a strong predictor of
achievement across a variety of learning tasks (Kylonnen
& Christal, 1990; Shute 1991). Another less researched
but potentially important cognitive skill, particularly in
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 11:38 24 October 2014
geometry, is spatial ability. Student ability to detect rela-
tionships and changes in shapes is not typically measured
in traditional school settings but may contribute to success
in a dynamic geometry environment. We theorized that
ability to succeed using a graphical tool like Sketchpad
might depend on skills other than reading and math-
ematics. Solving traditional mathematics problems often
requires only that students read and understand text-based
word problems. Although researchers have found that spa-
tial ability relates to achievement in mathematics in some
cases, findings are inconsistent.
Rhode and Thompson (2007) found that for under-
graduate students, spatial ability as measured by Raven’s
Progressive Matrices (Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998) pre-
dicted success in the mathematics portion of the Scholastic
Achievement Test (SAT), even after general cognitive
ability was partialled out. Conversely, Friedman (1995)
conducted a meta-analysis of 75 studies in which research-
ers investigated the relationship between spatial ability and
mathematics skills and found little correlation. She deter-
mined that verbal ability was a stronger predictor of math-
ematics achievement than was spatial ability. Friedman
also confirmed a claim of many previous researchers—that
spatial mathematics ability correlation is stronger among
female than male learners.
Hannafin and Scott (1998) investigated the predictive
value of spatial ability on posttest performance after using a
geometry program with Sketchpad. They found a mild (non-
significant) association between spatial ability and achieve-
ment but also recommended further research in this area.
In an examination of student structuring and enumeration
of two-dimensional rectangular arrays of squares in which
spatial structuring is defined as the mental operation of
constructing an organization or form for an object or set of
objects, Battista, Clements, Arnoff, Battista, and Van Auken
Borrow (1998) concluded that many students do not see
row-by-column structure. The researchers identified various
levels of sophistication in students’ structuring of arrays.
Also, Gonzalez, Thomas, and Vanyukov (2005) investigated
the relationships between spatial cognitive ability as assessed
149
by Raven’s Progressive Matrices, the Visual-Span (VSPAN)
test, and individuals’ performance on dynamic decision-
making tasks as they interacted with one of three micro-
worlds. They found a positive association between VSPAN
and Raven’s Progressive Matrices scores and among several
performance measures in three dynamic tasks.
The impact of spatial ability has also been investigated in
three-dimensional multimedia environments. Huk (2006)
examined the impact that interactive three-dimensional
(3D) models implemented within a hypermedia-learning
environment have on understanding cell biology. Huk
found that only students with high spatial ability benefited
from the presence of 3D models and that students with
low spatial ability became cognitively overloaded by the
presence of 3D models. Conversely, students with high
spatial ability benefited from the models because their total
cognitive load remained comfortably within the limits of
working memory. The role of spatial ability in graphics-rich
environments, both 3D and 2D, is not well understood. In
sum, although researchers have found that spatial ability
relates to achievement in mathematics in some cases, find-
ings are mixed. Also, many of the studies have been rela-
tional—the researchers have attempted to correlate spatial
ability with some external measure like SAT mathematics
scores. Few researchers examine the effect of spatial ability
in an experimental design. Furthermore, there is a paucity
of studies in which researchers have examined spatial abil-
ity with middle school students in public school classrooms
with relevant standards-aligned content.
Another variable of interest in the present study was
type of instructional program. There is ample evidence
purporting that students learn effectively in linear tutorial
instruction delivered via computer-based programs. J. Kulik
(1994, 2003) examined the impact of computer-assisted
instruction, or CAI, on achievement (as measured by a
posttest) in a variety of disciplines and confirmed that CAI
is an effective medium for learning. What is not as well
understood is the effectiveness of using computer programs
like Sketchpad to support less structured environments.
Hannafin (2004) investigated the effects of student ability
and type of instructional program, structured and unstruc-
tured, on easy and difficult posttest items. Although their
overall performance was poor in both programs, Hannafin
found that low-ability learners performed relatively better
than did high-ability learners in the less structured, less
traditional mathematics activities, an encouraging finding
for advocates of ill-structured learning environments.
Isiksal and Askar (2005) investigated effects of
instructional programs on the mathematics achievement
of seventh-grade students. The programs included a tra-
ditional instruction group as a control, a dynamic-soft-
ware group, and a spreadsheet software group. Results
revealed that students in the dynamic software group
and the traditional instruction group had significantly
higher posttest scores than did students in the spread-
sheet group. Although the authors’ findings supported
 150
use of the dynamic software over the spreadsheet soft-
ware, little difference occurred in achievement between
the dynamic software group and the traditional instruc-
tional program condition. The authors speculated that
their finding resulted from the fact that the assessment
required only reading and understanding text-based
mathematics word problems rather than tasks emulating
the dynamic software.
We designed two instructional programs for this study.
One treatment required students to proceed in an online
linear instructional program. The other treatment cov-
ered the same content through a series of activities using
Geometer’s Sketchpad. Students using Geometer’s Sketch-
pad could also use the online tutorial as a resource while
they worked through the activities. The treatment groups
are referred to as Tutorial and Sketchpad, respectively. We
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 11:38 24 October 2014
examined the effect of spatial ability (low and high) and
type of instructional program (Tutorial or Sketchpad) on
geometry achievement. Students were assigned to dyads
and then to either condition. The study permitted exami-
nation of the following hypotheses:
1. Students in the Sketchpad treatment group will score
higher on the posttest than will students working in the
Tutorial program;
2. High-spatial students will outperform low-spatial stu-
dents on the posttest and particularly in the Sketchpad
treatment; and
3. Students in the Sketchpad condition will like the instruc-
tion better than will students in the Tutorial group.
Method
Participants
Participants were 66 sixth-grade students (27 boys,
39 girls) of four mathematics teachers in a middle-class
suburb located near a northeastern university. The total
number of students working in the experimental sessions
was initially 125, but 59 either did not complete the pro-
gram (because of absences) or did not return the signed
release forms necessary for compliance with the Insti-
tutional Review Board. Students took part in the study
during their normally scheduled mathematics periods. We
had two dedicated laboratories, which allowed students
to be assigned randomly by instructional treatment, thus
avoiding the threat to internal validity that intact classes
often present.
Materials
We used two instructional resources (not to be confused
with treatment groups): (a) Intro—an online geometry
program and (b) a booklet of activities that guided stu-
dents’ use of the Geometer’s Sketchpad software program.
Students in the Sketchpad treatment condition used both
resources; students in the Tutorial treatment group used
The Journal of Educational Research
only the Tutorial. The content of both resources directly
addressed several state geometry standards identified by the
host teachers.
Student booklet. The students in the Sketchpad treat-
ment group used a booklet that we developed, containing
six geometry activities. Each activity required that stu-
dents use Sketchpad to create and manipulate geometric
shapes and objects. The activities allowed students to
explore while guiding, prompting, and helping them as
necessary. For example, in Figure 1, students received
step-by-step instructions on ways to construct the alti-
tude of a triangle to calculate the area. After the altitude
and base had been measured and the area calculated in
Figure 1, learners could drag the triangle’s vertex and
observe the relationship among the base, altitude, and
area. Our intention was that the student booklet would
provide sufficient guidance to allow student pairs to work
as independently as possible, enabling them to generate
one team answer during the activities. The activities pro-
gressed in difficulty from basic geometric concepts such as
measuring and classifying angles, lines, rays, and segments
to more abstract relationships.
Online tutorial program. Intro was the second resource
used by students. The program included instruction,
examples, and practice questions necessary to master the
learning objectives identified by the state standards. Intro
included several Macromedia Flash animations to help
students visualize rotated shapes. Students could play the
animations as often as they needed. We based Intro’s design
on Dick and Carey’s (2000) systematic design model; it
could be used either as a linear tutorial or a searchable
database. Students in the Tutorial treatment group used
Intro as a linear tutorial and proceeded through the entire
program sequentially by clicking on the “Next” button to
view all the instruction, examples, and practice problems.
Conversely, in the Sketchpad treatment group, Intro was
available on a computer adjacent to the machine used
by students to work on Sketchpad activities (each dyad
had two dedicated computers). Learners in the Sketchpad
group tended to use it as a resource or database, “jumping
in and out of it” looking for a particular concept or term.
The search feature and menu allowed students to access
different sections directly, that is, without paging through
all of the content.
To summarize, students in the Sketchpad treatment
group had access to two sets of instructional resources; they
completed activities in the student booklet and were able
to use the Intro tutorial program as needed. They tended
to use Intro as a database to look up specific definitions or
concepts as they worked through the activities in the book-
let. The booklet contained activities and a series of guided
questions that students answered by drawing shapes and
manipulating them in Sketchpad. Students in the Sketch-
pad group accessed Intro for needed factual information
but were not required to complete all of Intro in a linear
fashion. Students in the Tutorial treatment group did not
 January/February 2008 [Vol. 101(No. 3)]
1. Open a new sketch and draw a triangle. Select a side of
the triangle and the vertex opposite the base.
A Procedure
C B
2. Construct a perpendicular line by clicking on the construct
menu and choosing perpendicular line.
3. Place a point at the intersection of the base and the
perpendicular line.
4. Click on the perpendicular line and choose Hide Line
from the Display menu.
5. Select the new point on the base and the vertex opposite
the base. (This is not necessary on the current versions
of Sketchpad.)
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 11:38 24 October 2014
6. Click on the Construct menu and select Segment.
A analogy, and to organize spatial perceptions into systemati-
C B
D age) that uses colors to attract and hold the attention of
Length of segment AD = 2 in.
7. While the new line segment is still selected, click on
the Measure menu and select Length. The length of
that segment is the height of the triangle.
FIGURE 1. Part of a sample Sketchpad activity.
B12
1 2 3 with the student with the second lowest score, and so on).
4 5 6 to work on the instructional program.
FIGURE 2. Sample item on Raven’s Colored Progressive
Matrices (J. C. Raven, 1938).
151
use the student activities; they worked in a linear fashion
only through Intro.
Prior to the initial experimental session, teachers informed
students that they would be working on a computer-based
geometry program and that their test grade at the end of
the program would count toward their course grade. The
week before the program began, the host teachers adminis-
tered a geometry pretest (measuring prior knowledge about
the content) and Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices,
a measure of spatial problem solving. Raven’s Progressive
Matrices (Raven, Court, & Raven, 1986; Raven, Raven,
& Court, 1998), introduced originally in 1938, “is a non
verbal test of reasoning ability based on figural stimuli . . .
that measures the ability to form comparisons, to reason by
cally related wholes” (Sattler, 2001, p. 561).
The Colored Progressive Matrices is a 36-item test
appropriate for students aged 5–11 years (host teachers
informed us that their students were 11 years old, on aver-
children. Split-half reliabilities for the colored matrices
have ranged from .65 to .94; test–retest reliability ranged
from .71 to .93 (see Raven et al., 1986). The Raven tests
have been correlated with intelligence (with concurrent
validity coefficients between .50 and the .80s) and achieve-
ment tests (coefficients between .30 and the .60s).
We gave students a matrix-like arrangement (included in
the published Raven test set) of figural symbols and asked
them to complete the matrix by selecting the appropriate
missing symbol from a group of symbols (see Figure 2).
Because of time constraints, we shortened Raven’s Colored
Progressive Matrices to a 16-item test. Student scores on
the Raven ranged from 7 to 16 (Cronbach’s α coefficient
of .73) with a mean score of 13.87. Thirty-three students
scored 15 or 16 (M = 15.51) and were classified as high spa-
tial ability; 33 students scored 14 or below (M = 12.03) and
were classified as low spatial ability. We also used the scores
to systematically pair students from each class into dyads
(the student with the highest Raven score in one class was
paired with the student with the lowest score in the same
class; the student with the second highest score was paired
As teachers brought their classes to the labs, dyads were
then assigned randomly to one of two dedicated computer
labs (one lab for the Tutorial treatment, one for Sketchpad)
We conducted the treatments simultaneously in two adja-
cent computer labs. On Day 1 of the experimental sessions,
we (at least two researchers in each lab) provided general
instructions and examples for using each of the respective
programs. The orientation sessions for the Sketchpad group
took more time than did the sessions for the Tutorial group
because students had not used or seen Sketchpad previously
 152
and needed guided practice using the construction tools to
create and manipulate figures in Sketchpad. We conducted
the experimental sessions during regularly scheduled math-
ematics classes over 7 school days.
While students in the Sketchpad treatment group worked
on the instructional activities in the student booklet, we
instructed and encouraged them to use the Intro program
as a resource to clarify, look up definitions, and so forth
but did not force them to go through Intro in a linear fash-
ion. Students were also prompted by the student booklet;
theoretically, the students were not obligated to use Intro.
Along with the participating teachers, we were available
to clarify, guide, and assist students, but we did not provide
explicit answers related to geometry content. Students in
the dyads assigned to the Tutorial instructional treatment
were also able to discuss and work together. Students in the
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 11:38 24 October 2014
Tutorial treatment completed Intro as a tutorial, then took
the posttest. We anticipated that students in the Tutorial
group would need less time to complete the Intro program,
so we allowed those students to complete the Sketch-
pad activities after the 26-item posttest. Students needed
approximately 90 min to complete the Intro program,
compared with about 3 hr for the Sketchpad program. We
did not report data from the after-treatment activities for
the Tutorial group. No time-on-task data were available;
we did not systematically collect observational or other
qualitative data.
We instructed students in both treatments to work
and collaborate with their partners during the program,
although we specified that each student would take the
posttest independently with no help from his or her part-
ner. Some degree of students’ collaboration was ensured in
the Sketchpad treatment while they completed the student
booklet by performing interdependent tasks. Collabora-
tion in the Tutorial group occurred naturally but was not
prompted by the program instructions. Students in both
groups completed the attitude survey after the program but
before the posttest.
Criterion Measures
We developed two criterion measures for the current
study: a posttest measure of achievement and an attitude
questionnaire. Once students completed the instruction
and began the posttest and the attitude questionnaire,
they could no longer access the information portion of
the program. The 26 items on the posttest were multiple-
choice format, with four response choices per question.
The posttest did not involve using Sketchpad to draw
or construct. Rather, we wanted the posttest to mirror as
closely as possible the test items typically included in the
state mastery examination. Wherever possible, the test
items replicated released items exactly from previous state
mathematics examinations. To ensure content or face
validity, the second author (a mathematics educator for
elementary and middle school preservice teachers who is
The Journal of Educational Research
an expert in mathematics assessments) and the four host
teachers reviewed the final examination. All the review-
ers judged that the items adequately covered the content
objectives and were a representative sample of the con-
tent being assessed. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was a
low-moderate .60 for the posttest. Netemeyer, Bearden,
and Sharma (2003) argued that a .70 alpha level is a
desired minimum.
The other criterion measure was a student questionnaire
that contained five Likert-type attitude items with choices
ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The
items measured learner attitudes about the instruction-
al programs. The questionnaire was administered online
immediately preceding the posttest. We determined that
the alpha coefficient for the attitude survey was .69.
We adapted the items from instruments used in previous
research (e.g., Hannafin, 2004; Hannafin & Scott, 1998).
Design and Data Analysis
We used a 2 × 2 (Instructional Program × Level of Spa-
tial Ability) design. The following cell sizes (n) resulted:
(a) low spatial in the Tutorial treatment, n = 16; (b) low
spatial Sketchpad treatment, n = 17; (c) high spatial Tuto-
rial, n = 15; and (d) high spatial Sketchpad, n = 18. To
increase the power of the design, we controlled for ability-
related variability in posttest scores by using the pretest as
a covariate because the pretest correlated strongly with the
posttest scores (r = .28, p = .01).1 We examined gender but
found no effect for either achievement (r = .06, p = .31)
or attitude (items ranging from r = .01, p = .49 to r = .12,
p = .18). Therefore, we analyzed posttest data in the 2 × 2
(Program × Spatial Ability) design with analysis of covari-
ance (ANCOVA).
Because we did not expect that mathematics ability
would influence student attitudes about the program, we
analyzed attitudes without the covariate. We first con-
ducted a 2 × 2 (Program × Spatial Ability) multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) across the five attitude
items, followed by corresponding univariate tests if we
detected any significant multivariate effect. We performed
all tests with the SPSS (Version 14) statistical package at
an alpha level of .05.
Results
Table 1 shows the unadjusted and covariate-adjusted
mean posttest scores for program (Tutorial and Sketchpad)
and spatial ability (low and high). The overall mean for
all students was 15.73 out of 26 (60.5%). The ANCOVA
revealed a significant effect for spatial ability but not for
instructional treatment. The adjusted marginal mean post-
test scores for learners in the high-spatial groups (M =
16.69) were significantly higher on the posttest than for
low-spatial learners (M = 14.76), F(1, 61) = 6.41, p = .014,
partial η2 = .10. Despite spending substantially more time
 January/February 2008 [Vol. 101(No. 3)] 153

active geometry programs as helping to build “increasingly

TABLE 1. Mean Adjusted Posttest Scores, by Program sophisticated mental models for thinking about shapes,
and Spatial Ability
[and] models . . .” Our finding was also inconsistent with
the findings of Sinclair and Crespo (2006) who found
Spatial ability group Tutorial Sketchpad Total that students learn more mathematics content by using
a dynamic geometry program. There are several possible
Low reasons for that nonfinding. The most obvious reason
M 13.75 15.78 14.76
SE 0.77 0.75 0.54 is that sixth-grade students can enjoy learning as well
Unadjusted M 13.69 15.71 14.73 and in less time with computer-delivered direct linear
High instruction as they can in the more labor-intensive, time-
M 16.68 16.70 16.69 consuming Sketchpad environment. Although that possi-
SE 0.80 0.74 0.54 bility deserves serious consideration, we believe that there
Unadjusted M 16.47 17.00 16.76
are other plausible explanations.
Total The first explanation is that in an attempt to not “stack
M 15.21 16.24 15.73 the deck” against the Tutorial, we may have made the
SE 0.56 0.52 0.38
Intro program, in a sense, too good. We designed Intro
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 11:38 24 October 2014

Unadjusted M 15.03 16.37 15.74

in the program and the advantage of having access to both
instructional programs, the Sketchpad group scored only
marginally higher (M = 16.37) than did the Tutorial group
(M = 15.03), F(1, 61) = 1.79, p > .05. The interaction was
not significant, F(1, 61) = 1.73, p > .05.
We conducted a 2 × 2 (Program × Spatial Ability)
MANOVA on the attitude items, which we scored on a
4-point, Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strong agreement
with positively stated items) to 4 (strong disagreement with
positively stated items). Our analysis revealed no significant
multivariate effect for program, F(5, 58) = .77, p = .58,
spatial ability, F(5, 58) = .91, p = .48, or interaction effect,
F(5, 58) = 1.04, p = .40. Overall item means indicated
that students liked working in the programs (Tutorial M =
1.68, Sketchpad M = 1.86), tried hard (Tutorial M = 1.71,
Sketchpad M = 1.74), and enjoyed working with a partner
(Tutorial M = 2.10, Sketchpad M = 1.89). Students agreed
with the statement that “I would like to use this program
again in mathematics” (Tutorial M = 1.61, Sketchpad M =
1.86) and agreed with the statement, although less strongly,
that the program was easy (Tutorial M = 2.16, Sketchpad
M = 2.20).
Discussion
The first hypothesis, that students in the Sketchpad
treatment group would score higher on the posttest than
would students working in the Tutorial group, was not sup-
ported. Despite the advantage of additional time on task
(90 min to complete the Intro program compared with 3
hr for the Sketchpad program) and additional instructional
material (Intro program plus the Sketchpad activities), stu-
dents in the Sketchpad group did not perform significantly
better than did their classmates in the Tutorial group.
We believed that because students could manipulate and
interact with onscreen shapes and activities, they would
perhaps internalize the experience and learn the concepts
more deeply, the way that Battista (2002) described inter-
to cover the same content as the Tutorial in an engag-
ing way; but unlike computer tutorials used in older CAI
studies, instructional programs like Intro can feature flash
movies and animated examples. Thus, the programs were
perhaps not sufficiently different from each other to result
in achievement or attitude differences.
A second possibility could relate to a match or lack of
match between the treatment programs and the assess-
ment. For example, Isiksal and Askar (2005) suggested that
little difference in mathematical achievement between a
traditional instruction group and a dynamic software treat-
ment group could relate to the text-based assessment—that
is, one more aligned with a traditional program than with
a dynamic program. In that case, although the assessment
was administered on a computer and included some graphic
images, it may have more closely emulated the tutorial pro-
gram than the Sketchpad program.
On the surface, the Intro program seemed to be a more
efficient program. Students spent less time in the program
than did learners in the Sketchpad treatment. A few cir-
cumstances also contributed to the time difference; we spent
considerably more time introducing the tool and helping stu-
dents use the construction and measure tools in Sketchpad.
In addition, we prompted students to collaborate with their
partner and then write their answer in the activity booklet.
Finally, students had to open several preconstructed sketches
from the school’s file server, which sometimes caused small
delays. However, the biggest reason for the time difference
was clearly the questions that arose when students manipu-
lated shapes. Students routinely asked us or their teachers
to help them understand one or more parts of an activity.
The increased engagement (observed by us, but evidence is
anecdotal) was belied by the fact that learners in the Tuto-
rial performed as well and liked it as much as students in the
Sketchpad group liked their program.
The impact of additional time on student achieve-
ment is unclear. C. Kulik and Kulik (1991) examined 32
postsecondary studies in which they compared the impact
of instructional time on the performance of students in a
CAI program with subjects in conventional classrooms.
 154
They found that CAI students needed much less time on
task to master the same content. Hannafin and Sullivan
(1996) reported that students assigned to a CAI geometry
unit controlled by the program (no user choices) spent
more time in the program and did score significantly better
than did students who had a choice to either add or bypass
instructional material. However, in the same study, the
authors also examined the performance of students in the
two-choice conditions (add vs. bypass) and reported that
learners who had the option to add screens scored compa-
rably with the bypass group, despite spending less time in
the program (36 min vs. 52 min) and viewing fewer (34 vs.
82) screens. The critical factor here was that students in
the add group spent more time (19.2 sec vs. 16.1 sec) on
each of the screens that they viewed. Hannafin and Sulli-
van speculated that there was perhaps more intentionality
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 11:38 24 October 2014
in the add condition because students had to consciously
decide to select information, contrasted with students in
the bypass condition, who repeatedly clicked on the Next
button to skip the additional instruction.
Kritch and Bostow (1998) found that college students
who spent more time than did their fellow students in a
CAI instructional program on authoring languages did
score higher on a posttest but that the difference was caused
by the nature of student involvement (being required to
engage in dense reflections during the instruction (i.e., they
experienced frequent situations requiring them to supply
key components of the subject taught) rather than by the
additional time. The researchers used a yoked control group
in which students did not have access to the dense instruc-
tion but spent the same amount of time as did students in
the dense reflections group. Students in the control group
scored significantly worse than did their counterparts in
the experimental group. Thus, one can argue that addi-
tional time alone will not result in higher achievement;
rather, it is how time is used that matters. More research is
needed for a determination of ways to better quantify the
outcomes that we observed.
The second hypothesis, that high-spatial students would
outperform low-spatial students on the posttest, was sup-
ported. That spatial ability predicted success in this instruc-
tional program, after mathematics ability was partialled out,
has potentially important implications for the design of
multimedia and open environments. Our finding supports
that of Rhode and Thompson (2007), who found that spatial
ability in young adults predicted success in the mathematics
portion of the SAT examination, over and above the contri-
bution of general cognitive ability. However, our finding was
not consistent with the results of Friedman’s (1995) meta-
analysis, in which she found that mathematics achievement
correlated only mildly with spatial ability. Yet, it is possible
that when looking solely at geometry achievement, as we
did, the relationship may be stronger.
The expectation that high-spatial students in Sketchpad
would outperform their counterparts in the Tutorial condi-
tion was not borne out. Because both programs were very
The Journal of Educational Research
graphical, students with high spatial ability may have been
rewarded equally in both programs. That phenomenon is
possibly related to Huk’s (2006) speculation that students
with high-spatial ability benefited from the presence of 3D
models because their total cognitive load remained within
working memory limits. The possibility that Intro and
Sketchpad taxed cognitive load equally (albeit uninten-
tionally from our point of view) because of the animated
rotations in Intro might help explain the similar perfor-
mance on the posttest.
The third hypothesis that students in the Sketchpad
treatment would prefer it to the Tutorial treatment was
also not supported. The simplest explanation, and perhaps
somewhat self-serving, is program length; Intro was shorter,
and for sixth graders, shorter is often better. Intro also was
fairly engaging. In hindsight, students had little reason to
favor one program over the other.
Dynamic geometry programs are intuitively appealing
to many mathematics teachers and mathematics educa-
tors. There is an underlying assumption in the literature
that students’ use of programs like Sketchpad is inher-
ently worthwhile. Our findings do not quite challenge that
assumption, but they also do not directly support it. Hol-
lebrands (2007) examined Sketchpad qualitatively (e.g.,
interviews, videotaping) as a mediator of learning and
noticed that even with well-designed tasks (questions, etc.)
and skilled teachers, students may realize different (and not
always accurate) meanings. She suggested that instruction
needs not only to focus on “mathematical relationships
represented in the technological environment” (p. 190)
but also to attend to students’ current understandings and
to bridge new learning to those understandings. Her results,
along with those of the present study, suggest the need for
additional research into the availability and constraints
of programs like Sketchpad for helping students enhance
mathematical understanding.
We acknowledge a few limitations. The sample size
was relatively small. However, as is often the case with
all school-based research, we had no control over student
attrition or whether parent permission forms were returned
by students. Clearly, however, a larger sample would be
desirable. Also, because students worked in pairs and were
encouraged to help each other (especially in the Sketchpad
treatment), we cannot know how much their performance
was influenced by these interactions. But because the host
teachers preferred students to work in dyads, we had to
forfeit some internal validity for arguably more ecological
validity (teachers believed that the students benefited from
working with a partner).
Another possible limitation was the fact that we used
a truncated (not normed) version of the Raven Colored
Progressive Matrices. If time permitted, we would have
preferred to use the full 36-item version, but because the
host faculty objected, we adapted it. We know that the
shortened instrument did measure something apart from
mathematics ability, and we believe that it was the same
 January/February 2008 [Vol. 101(No. 3)]
construct—partial ability—that the 36-item test would
have measured, but we cannot be sure.
Researchers need to consider the fact that recently,
multimedia design tools have become so sophisticated that
they render moot some of the advantages that Sketchpad
previously afforded. Perhaps researchers can create a new
line of research to examine the impact of 3D animations in
multimedia environments that are similar to Huk’s (2006)
work. Much work has also been done with the Web-based
Java Sketchpad in the area of curriculum design (e.g.,
http://www.dynamicgeometry.com/general_resources/class
room_activities; Nickell, 2007), but little empirical work
has been done with that promising tool. Future studies
should also include rich qualitative data. For example,
Hollebrands (2007) used qualitative methods to develop
case studies of high school students, which focused on
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 11:38 24 October 2014
ways to use dynamic geometry software to mediate under-
standing about geometric transformations. In our case, it
would have been helpful if we had used audio or video
recordings and transcriptions to document what students
did differently in each program. We would have liked to
answer questions such as, What did the dyads talk about?
and What kinds of questions did they ask? Also, electron-
ic tracking of the paths that students took (e.g., screens
viewed, time on screen) in the respective programs would
possibly have shed light on the strategies employed in
each condition.
We also recommend that researchers continue to work
to identify and examine measures that predict spatial abil-
ity. We used the Raven program with promising results, but
perhaps another instrument (e.g., VSPAN) has stronger
predictive value. Finally, we developed a posttest that
aligned with state standards but may not have measured
higher order outcomes that accrued to students in one or
both treatments. Researchers should investigate assess-
ments that better measure the critical-thinking skill so
essential to the development of geometric thinking.
NOTE
1. Homogeneity of variance and covariance was confirmed with Lev-
ene’s test for equality of variance, F(3, 62) = 0.15, p = .93. Interactions
between the covariate independent factors were not significant, which
confirmed the homogeneity of regression coefficients.
REFERENCES
Battista, M. T. (2002). Learning geometry in a dynamic computer envi-
ronment. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8, 333–339.
Battista, M. T. (2003). Computer technologies and teaching geometry
through problem solving. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Teaching mathematics
through problem solving: Prekindergarten–grade 6 (pp. 229–238). Reston,
VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Battista, M. T., Clements, D. H., Arnoff, J., Battista, K., & Van Auken
Borrow, C. (1998). Students’ spatial structuring of 2D arrays of squares.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 503–532.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the
culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.
Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reason-
ing. In D. Grous (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning (pp. 420–464). New York: Macmillan.
155
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV). (1992). The
Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instruc-
tional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1),
65–80.
Crown, W. D. (2003). Using technology to enhance a problem-based
approach to teaching: What will work and what will not work. In F.
K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Teaching mathematics through problem solving: Pre-
kindergarten-grade 6 (pp. 217–228). Reston, VA: National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
Dick, W., & Carey, L. (2000). The systematic design of instruction. Glen-
view, IL: Longman.
Friedman, L. (1995). The space factor in mathematics: Gender differ-
ences. Review of Educational Research, 65, 22–50.
Gardner, J. E., Wissick, C. A., Schweder, W., & Canter, L. S. (2003).
Enhancing interdisciplinary instruction in general and special educa-
tion: Thematic units and technology. Remedial and Special Education,
24, 161–172.
Gonzalez, C., Thomas, R. P., & Vanyukov, P. (2005). The relationships
between cognitive ability and dynamic decision making. Intelligence,
33, 169–186.
Hannafin, R. D. (2004). Achievement differences in structured versus
unstructured instructional geometry programs. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 52(1), 19–32.
Hannafin, R. D., & Scott, B. N. (1998). Identifying critical learner traits
in a dynamic computer-based geometry program. The Journal of Educa-
tional Research, 92, 3–12.
Hannafin, R. D., & Sullivan, H. J. (1996). Learner preferences and learner
control over amount of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology,
88, 162–173.
Hollebrands, K. (2007). The role of a dynamic software program for geom-
etry in the strategies high school mathematics students employ. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 164–192.
Huk, T. (2006).Who benefits from learning with 3D models? The case of
spatial ability. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 392–404.
Isiksal, M., & Askar, P. (2005). The effect of spreadsheet and dynamic
geometry software on the achievement and self-efficacy of 7th-grade
students. Educational Research, 47, 333–350.
Key Curriculum Press. (1993). Geometer’s Sketchpad [Computer program].
Berkeley, CA.
Knuth, E., & Hartman, C. E. (2005). Using technology to foster students’
mathematical understandings and intuitions. In W. J. Masalaski (Ed.),
Technology-supported mathematics learning environments: Sixty-seventh
yearbook (pp. 151–164). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Kozma, R. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.
Kritch, K. M., & Bostow, D. E. (1998). Degree of constructed-response
interaction in computer-based programmed instruction. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 387–398.
Kulik, C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruc-
tion: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75–94.
Kulik, J. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based
instruction. In E. L. Baker & H. F. O’Neil Jr. (Eds.), Technology assess-
ment in education and training (pp. 9–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kulik, J. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and
secondary schools: What controlled evaluation studies say. Arlington,
VA: SRI International. http://www.sri.com/policy/csted/reports/sandt/
it/Kulik_ITinK-12_Main_Report.pdf
Kylonnen, P. C., & Christal, R. E. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more
than) working memory capacity? Intelligence, 14, 389–422.
Land, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1996). A conceptual framework for the
development of theories in action with open learning environments.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 37–53.
Liu, Y. (2006). Intro to geometry. An unpublished online geometry tutorial
and support system.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and stan-
dards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics.
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling proce-
dures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nickell, J. (2007, April). Useful online and teacher production tools of
the Geometer’s Sketchpad. Mathematics Teacher, 100, 565–567.
Pólya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning. Vol. 1: Induction and
analogy in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
 156 The Journal of Educational Research

Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E. & Duncan, R.
G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support
science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337–386.
Raven, J. C. (1938). Progressive matrices. London: Lewis.
Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1986). Manual for Raven’s progres-
sive matrices and vocabulary scales. Section 2–Coloured progressive matrices
(1986 ed., with U. S. norms). London: Lewis.
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court J. H. (1998). Coloured progressive matri-
ces. Oxford, England: Oxford Psychologists Press.
Rhode, T. E., & Thompson, L. A. (2007). Predicting academic achieve-
ment with cognitive ability. Intelligence, 35, 83–92.
Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th ed.).
San Diego, CA: Author.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project:
Trying to bring the classroom into World 3. In K. McGilly (Ed.),
Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp.
201–228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Scher, D. (2005). Square or not? Assessing constructions in an inter-
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 11:38 24 October 2014
active geometry software environment. In W. J. Masalaski (Ed.),
Technology-supported mathematics learning environments: Sixty-seventh
yearbook (pp. 113–124). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics.
Shute, V. J. (1991). Who is likely to acquire programming skills? Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 6, 1–24.
Sinclair, N., & Crespo, S. (2006). Learning mathematics in dynamic com-
puter environments. Teaching Children Mathematics, 12, 436–444.
SPSS. (2002). SPSS 14 Windows. [Computer program]. Chicago: Author.
van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics
education. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Vincent, J. (2005). Interactive geometry software and mechanical link-
ages: Scaffolding students’ deductive reasoning. In W. J. Masalaski
(Ed.), Technology-supported mathematics learning environments: Sixty-
seventh yearbook (pp. 93–112). Reston, VA: National Council of Teach-
ers of Mathematics.
Zheng, T. (2002). Do mathematics with interactive geometry software.
Mathematics Teacher, 96, 492–497.

� ������ ��� ������ ����

� ������ �������� �������
������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
���������������������������

�������������������������
����������������������������������
��������������������������������������������������
������������������������������������������������������������������������
������������������������������������

������ ������� � ������� �����������������

��������������������
��� � ��� ������
� �� ��������� ��� ����������
��� ������������� � � ��� ������������
����������������� � �� ��������������� ������������������������������������������������
 ���������������
�����������
����������
������������
Downloaded by [University of Illinois Chicago] at 11:38 24 October 2014

Journal of Education for Business is introducing Professional

Perspectives—a new section—beginning with the 2006 volume
year. Professional Perspectives aims to supplement JEB
objectives by providing practitioners’ perspectives on current
issues in the business field. Changes in today’s business world
and in the business professions fundamentally influence the
competencies that business graduates need. Thus, JEB offers a forum for authors addressing those areas or
proposing new theories and analyses of controversial issues. The section will address current issues facing
the business community today such as diversity, discrimination, marketing strategies, ethics in leadership,
accounting restraints, globalization, outsourcing, downsizing, and recruiting.

Submissions for Professional Perspectives should include: an overview of the issue being addressed;
historical perspectives on the issue; current workplace examples of the issue; potential outcomes in terms
of impacts on personnel, costs, legal matters, and other parameters; impact of proposed business models
on creativity and innovation; how the proposed model relates to trends in industry or business in general;
and recommendations to business faculty as to what they may do to assist in resolving the issue. The
submission must be between 1500 to 2500 words.

If you are interested in submitting to Professional Perspectives, please visit http://mc.manuscriptcentral

.com/heldref/jebs. Please refer to the instructions to authors on the login page or at http://www
.heldref.org/jebmanu.php for further information.

Managing Editor
Journal of Education for Business
��������������������
������������������������������������������������������
����������������������������������������������������������������������������