In a former 'post' (from August
31st) we've talked about the need for evidence about the influence of cognitive
ability training on achievement in math, reading and writing. Studies show that spatial ability predicts
achievement in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Wai, Lubinski and Benbow (2009) found, for
example, that the spatial skills of people with a Bachelor's (or higher) degree
in engineering are 1.58 standard deviations higher than those of the general
population.
Does spatial ability
training improve achievement in science, technology, engineering and math? This meta-analysis:
The malleability of spatial skills: a meta analysis of training
studies. David H. Uttal, Nathaniel G. Meadow,Elizabeth Tipton, Linda L.
Hand, Alison R. Alden, Christopher
Warren and Nora
S. Newcombe. Psychological Bulletin
2013, Vol. 139, No. 2, 352–402
went half way to answer this question. The researchers have meticulously checked the
literature, to try to answer the following questions: Are spatial skills malleable and can training improve them? If so – is the improvement durable? Does the
improvement transfer to other spatial tasks?
Which is most effective training method? In light of research showing
that men outperform women on spatial tasks – can training in those tasks close
the gap between men and women? Does training
have a different impact in different age groups?
Why did I write that the meta-analysis
went half way? Because most studies
included in this meta-analysis (202 out of 206 studies) examined the effect of
training on other
spatial skills and not on achievement in science, technology, engineering, math
or other achievement domains (reading, writing, geography etc). The studies were done with non-clinical population.
The researchers describe the
meta- analysis process in a very interesting and a (mostly) clear way.
The results:
Are spatial skills malleable and can training improve them? Yes,
by almost half a standard deviation compared to the pre-training level. What's more: participants who had low spatial
ability on the pretest, improved more after training than participants who had
high spatial ability on the pretest.
If so – is the improvement durable? Yes. There was no difference in the amount of
improvement when it was tested right after training, less than a week after
training, or less than a month after training.
Does
the improvement transfer to other spatial tasks? Yes. Training led to an improvement of about half a
standard deviation in new spatial tasks, even those that required different
skills or representations than those required in the training tasks.
Which
is the most effective training method? There
was no difference in efficiency and amount of improvement between training
through video games, through a course or training on a specific task with
strategic instructions for that task.
In light of research showing that men
outperform women on spatial tasks – can training in those tasks close the gap
between men and women? Men outperform women in spatial processing
tasks with the exception of object location memory ("where have I left my
keys?") in which women sometimes perform better. Men outperformed women in this
meta-analysis, too – both in the pre and in the posttest, both in the treatment
and in the control groups. There was no
difference in the amount of improvement between men and women. Following training, both sexes improved
equally well. Training did not close the
gap between men and women.
Does training have a different impact in different
age groups? In this meta-analysis, all age groups improved equally
well following training.
No comments:
Post a Comment