2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

The purpose of this arts-based research paper is to critically examine the practice of spatial skills testing in engineering education research and practice. Many well-meaning educators and researchers have undertaken projects to help women students succeed in engineering by offering spatial skills training courses, under the premise that women lag behind men in spatial skills and that this contributes to their lower rates of participation in engineering. The practice of spatial skills testing and funneling students into remedial courses promotes a deficit model against women and Black, Hispanic/Latino/Latine, and Native American students of all genders, as these students disproportionately score lower on some widely used assessments that are thought to measure spatial skills, such as the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test (PSVT:R). The validity and fairness of these assessments is generally unquestioned.

This paper takes the form of a “visual paper,” which uses illustrations and minimal text to tell a story, similar to a comic strip. This visual paper highlights a growing body of research which questions the validity of popular spatial tests like the MRT and PSVT:R. The paper also discusses the history of spatial testing draws attention to the fact that many of the spatial tests used today were popularized not because of their ability to accurately measure a spatial construct, but simply because of their ability to demonstrate “gender differences.” This paper draws attention to recent studies which indicate that spatial training interventions have not proven themselves to be effective at improving spatial skills, as measured by spatial tests. When the interventions do have good outcomes, such as promoting graduation rates, this is more likely due to the non-spatial aspects of the interventions, for example, the fact that the courses are majority women and provide peer networking opportunities.

When faced with the argument that existing spatial tests are gender biased or otherwise invalid, people often ask for a “better test.” This paper uses recent literature to argue that instead of trying to find a better spatial skills test, we should reconsider the role that spatial skills actually play in training engineers. This paper argues that spatial skills testing and training interventions are a misuse of the time and energy of people who want to help women and other historically excluded students succeed in engineering. We must reframe our interventions without perpetuating deficit models about cognitive abilities like “spatial skills,” a construct which, in spite of its wide popularity in the STEM education community, has been very poorly formulated.