Changing technologies

              The one thing we can count on in the future is continual technological change.  This paper looks at the changes in technology education and teaching related to the age of industry and invention.  The growth of industry forced changes in curriculum and teaching methods.  The challenges facing education in the past are much the same as today; to prepare graduates to enter the workforce, to think critically, to solve problems and to encourage lifelong learning.  Critical issues of the past remain important today; how to keep faculty current, how to acquire needed resources, how to provide practical “hands on” experience, and how to best blend research and teaching.  The information age has led to the use of computers in the laboratory, as an aid to teaching, and also led to the development of new multi-media systems.  The new technology has placed new requirements on faculty members, but the overall objectives of technical education remain the same.  The rate of change may be faster now, but continues to drive educators as it has for years.  Technological change will continue in the future.  Understanding the past can help educators deal with change. 
             

Educators have been continually faced with change driven by new technology.  This paper addresses the issue of technology changes and how they have impacted educators past and present.  The details of the technology are much different, yet with all the difference the changes may best be described as evolutionary. The evolution became quite visible during the American industrial revolution in the late 19^th century.  We can see changes that are the result of new discoveries and inventions that have led to products and ideas that continue to evolve today.  Change is truly on going, and we can expect it to continue and accelerate as we move into the future.  We will continue to be challenged to deal with change just as all educators have throughout the industrial age and into the information age.

              Perhaps the best way to start is to look back at the history with a concentration on the changes taking place during the exciting period of invention and discovery following the Civil War and into the early 20^th century.  Here we will see the foundations of technology and change that are the basis for technology today.  
Several areas of discovery led to inventions that supported the new industrial age.  These key areas include the development of effective steam power, the development of applications and distribution systems for electricity, discovery of new materials, the rapid growth in communications technology from the telephone to wireless, and technology that produced new forms of graphic images.   
A wonderful book from the National Geographic Society provides an interesting look at some of the inventions and discoveries that came to power the industrial revolution and drive change to the colleges and universities.  Steam continued to be a prime power source on the farm, rivers and rails of the United States through the early 1900s.  “At the turn of the century, a new engine, the steam turbine, sparked the age of the ocean liner.”  In 1897, for example, the ship Turbinia was powered by a turbo-charged engine putting out 2,000 horsepower and producing a top speed of 35 knots.  In the fall of 1879, Edison discovered that a charred cotton thread could become the filament in an electric lamp that could glow for over 13 hours.  It took several more years to perfect the basic electrical service needed to open the age of electricity.  In 1900 over 24 million electric lights were in use.  Nikola Tesla made long distance transmission of electric power possible with his invention of a system for producing and distributing alternating current.  Tesla, not Edison opened the age of electric light.  “In 1898 he exhibited radio-controlled model boats and torpedoes.  His experiments also anticipated radar, X-rays, solar power and the atom smasher.”  Alexander Graham Bell won the most lucrative patent ever for the telephone in March of 1876.  Henry Ford completed his first car in June of 1896.  The Model T was born in 1908 and by 1927 the 15 Millionth “T” rolled off the assembly line. [National Geographic, 1988]
             The growth of laboratory based instruction:  The leading scientists believed that the only adequate way to teach science was through laboratory work.  Science educators convinced the universities of the importance of providing adequate laboratory facilities.  Johns Hopkins, for example, became noted for its investment in research facilities for its faculty and students.   Reuben cites botanist John Coulter as stating, "The laboratory method means that the old recitation, which was the retailing of second-hand information as to facts, and second-hand opinions concerning them, has given place to the direct observation of facts and the expression of individual opinion concerning their significance.  As a result, students are sought to be made thinking rather than memorizing machines, with the intuitive power developed rather than the imitative."  After the Civil War…  the leading universities all adopted laboratory methods.  Angell of Michigan noted in 1888 that "the method of scientific instruction has been entirely revolutionized.  In the last half of the century, no more important step in education has been taken than in the universal introduction of the laboratory methods in the sciences."  [Reuben, 1996] 
            

The computer-based technology revolution is having a significant impact on the way we teach and the way students learn.  The effect of the computer can be seen in the tools are used in classes and the way computers are used to help teach.  The changes have been dramatic and continue to develop at a rapid pace.  The recent literature offers many examples of the use of new computer-based tools. Undergraduate engineering students often find a course “…divided into a lecture portion and a laboratory portion.  The lectures address specific behaviors of the system elements and the related assumptions and mathematical techniques used to evaluate the behaviors.  The laboratory portion of the course was intended to enable students to run the necessary software packages and interpret the results.” [Navaz, Henderson, and Mukkilmarudhur, 1998]  This pattern is seen in many current course designs.  

There are numerous examples of new industrial technology coming into the curriculum.  A good example is the growth in computer-aided design (CAD) and systems supporting concurrent design.  In the past ten years a significant move away from drafting and manual drawings has brought campuses across the nation into the computer age with the introduction of powerful and reasonably priced CAD systems emerging for personal computers.  Now the technology is jumping ahead once again with the development of processes and tools for rapid prototyping, one of the most widely used is stereo lithography.  “Users of CAD systems have always desired a means to produce three-dimensional hardcopies of their CAD models.  Manufacturers of rapid prototyping equipment have finally provided this capability.  Students are able to quickly build mock ups of their designs, in order to evaluate their fit, functionality and in some cases use as patterns in the school’s foundry.” [Zecher, 1998]   Teaching methods and the tools used will change, but the intent of helping students learn and prepare to be contributors in the future remains the same. 

             The use of the Internet and the development of courses for distance learning requires careful attention.  The following comments from a confirmed “Internet curmudgeon” confirm that care must be exercised when using this new technology.  The curmudgeon identifies several significant concerns that beg for attention as faculty members consider the great new electronic frontier known as the information superhighway.  "The Internet is less a highway than a diabolical maze.  This road is incessantly interrupted by intersections, is cluttered with ambiguous detours, lacks even a rudimentary road map, harbors villains uncounted, is pockmarked with advertising, and is very expensive to ride."   A recent report (1997) shows a high level of dissatisfaction with cyberspace.  People are not able to find what they are looking for, and are unsatisfied with reliability.  Faculty are “…being asked to lurch into the future with very little assessment.  "Look before you leap" and be prepared to face not only the triumphs, but also the trials of the net.” [Morgovsky, 1997]  "If the course is well designed and carefully implemented, online instruction can provide and effective educational environment and can be an enjoyable experience for both students and the instructor - particularly if the students are motivated and self-disciplined and the instructor maintains continuous interaction with them." [Cooper, 1999]  Good teaching, whether in a traditional classroom or using the technology of distance education and the Internet, requires careful attention to detail.  The design of the course should never be left to chance or allowed to develop without a plan. 

              We must continue to manage change with respect to our educational objectives just as our predecessors in education did at the turn of the century, and again at the start of the computer revolution, and now as we continue deeper into the information age.  The tools and systems we use to teach and prepare our graduates for entry into the “real world” will continually change and develop and become even more powerful.  We can only hope that the powerful computers and systems that speed up the pace of change and open up new possibilities for educators will also provide assistance in the management of change and help us stay in control.  

Responsible message creation

           

DIFFERENCES IN VISUAL AND SPATIAL ABILITY BETWEEN GENDERS

To: Dr. Peuchaud

By: Scott P. Fladland

Nov 1, 2010

                                                                                                                                                         

Abstract:

            Our class and two others participated in a lab experiment called the Mental Rotation Test (MRT). The experiment was conducted to determine weather there is a significant difference in visual and spatial abilities between genders. The MRT tested our ability to find the single matching shape among four similar shapes. Our class was the only one in which the men’s average was lower than that of the women. Nevertheless our male average score of 22 correct was still right at the overall MRT male average. The women in our class however, scored higher than the overall MRT female average. The overall score average for all three classes (men 24, women 20) still resulted in the same conclusion from past years, which is that men score higher on the MRT experiment.

Table of Contents:

            Introduction, Theoretical principles, Methods, Results, Figure #1 and Figure #2, Discussion of results, Conclusions and Recommendations, References. MRT = Mental Rotation Test.

Introduction:

            The purpose of our experiment is to determine weather there is a significant difference in visual and spatial ability between genders. Our Lab experiment used the timed MRT to test male and female visual and spatial abilities. The over all result s of our three classes were consistent with the results of previous years. However my class was an anomaly because the women outscored the men. The women in our three classes also scored slightly above the average score that women usually get on the MRT and the men scored a little below their normal average.  

            Extensive reports have been done that show a male advantage for a variety of spatial ability tasks. From early adolescence through adulthood gender differences in visual and spatial

                                                                                                                                                          

ability has been evident. There is conflicting evidence for gender differences in early grade school children though, probably because they haven’t had enough time to develop. Our instructor did an excellent job having us take the MRT without giving away what it tested and why we were taking it. Although I suspected we were taking the test for our lab paper I didn’t know what we were testing for. If I’d known I probably would have rushed to complete it and wouldn’t have done as well as I did, even though I scored well below average anyway.

Theoretical Principles:

            To come up with our individual scores on the MRT we had to subtract ½ of the number wrong from the number right to correct for guessing. Then calculate the corrected total score for parts one and two, separately and together. My individual score was only a 12; thankfully most of the other men in our class did better.

            In determining our total class average for all three classes we used this equation: Average male score minus average female score/ divided by average male score plus average female score. Our three class overall men’s average was 983/41= 23.97 which we rounded up to 24. The women’s average was 362/18= 20.11 which we rounded to 20.

            In a 2008 study paid for by the National Science Foundation in the United States, researchers found that "girls perform as well as boys on standardized math tests. Although 20 years ago, high school boys performed better than girls in math, the researchers found that is no longer the case. The reason, they said, is simple: Girls used to take fewer advanced math courses than boys, but now they are taking just as many." However, the study indicated that, while on average boys and girls performed similarly, boys were overrepresented among the very best performers as well as among the very worst. Studies have also shown that boys and girls tend to

                                                                                                                                                         

differ in the variance of their ability, though which gender shows the greatest variance tends to differ between countries; in some countries, such as the Netherlands, girls tend to have a greater variance than boys, whereas in others, such as the US, boys have the greater variance.

            Spatial abilities: large differences favoring males are found in performance on visual-spatial tasks (e.g. mental rotation) and spatio-temporal tasks (e.g. tracking a moving object through space). The male advantage in visual-spatial tasks is approximately one standard deviation, and becomes experimentally discernible at puberty. A minority of opinions are known to differ on this issue: In his book, Developmental Influences on Adult Intelligence: The Seattle Longitudinal Study, K. Warner Schaie concludes that there are few sex differences in spatial competencies.      

            Memory: Women show greater proficiency and reliance on distinctive landmarks for navigation while males rely on an overall mental map. Studies by H. Stumpf and Richard Lynn have also demonstrated statistically significant medium- and short-term memory advantages in women. A study examining sex differences in performance on the California Verbal Learning Test found that males performed better on Digit Span Backwards and on reaction time, while females were better on short-term memory recall and Symbol-Digit Modalities Test.

            In the nineteenth century, whether men and women had equal intelligence was seen by many as a prerequisite for the granting of suffrage. Leta Hollingworth argues that women were not permitted to realize their full potential, as they were confined to the roles of child-rearing and housekeeping. From the late twentieth century onwards, sex differences in intelligence have been discussed to determine whether disproportionate employment or payment favoring men is a manifestation of sexism or simply a reflection of innate aptitudes.                                                    

                                                                                                                                                          

            In 1861, Paul Broca examined 432 human brains and found that the brains of males had an average weight of 1,325 grams, while the brains of females had an average weight of 1,144 grams. Other differences that have been established include greater length in men of myelinated axons in their white matter (176,000 km compared to 146,000 km); and 33% more synapses per mm3 of cerebral cortex.

            In studies concerning intelligence, it has been suggested that the ratio of brain weight to body weight is more predictive of IQ levels, rather than actual brain weight. While men's brains are an average of 10-15% larger and heavier than women's brains, some researchers propose that the ratio of brain to body size does not differ between the sexes. However, some argue that since brain-to-body-size ratios tend to decrease as body size increases, a sex difference in brain-weight ratios still exists between men and women of the same size. A 1992 study of 6,325 Army personnel found that men's brains had an average volume of 1442 cm³, while the women averaged 1332 cm³. These differences were shown to be smaller but to persist even when adjusted for body size measured as body height or body surface, such that women averaged 100g less brain mass than men of equal size.

            An alternative proposal is the measurement of gray matter or white matter volume in the brain as an indicator of intelligence; the former used for information processing, whereas the latter consisting of the connections between processing centers. Neuroimaging studies, such as MRI and CT, have demonstrated loss of gray matter volume in conditions associated with cognitive impairment, such as Alzheimer's disease, front temporal dementia and senile dementia. In 2005, Haier et al. reported that, compared with men, women show more white matter and fewer gray matter areas related to intelligence. Using brain mapping, it was shown that men have

                                                                                                                                                         

more than six times the amount of gray matter related to general intelligence than women, and women have nearly ten times the amount of white matter related to intelligence than men. They also report that the brain areas correlated with IQ differ between the sexes. In short, men and women apparently achieve similar IQ results with different brain regions.

            Despite these findings, there still remains no clear relationship between physical brain measurement and functional capacity. Some have suggested that physical studies of the brain in predicting intelligence are largely arbitrary due to the inherent neuroplasticity of the organ and the multitude of ways that brain function can be influenced by the stimulating quality of the environment and hormonal influences.

            The importance of testosterone and other androgens as a cause of sex differences has been a subject of study. Adult women who were exposed to unusually high levels of androgens in the womb due to a condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia score significantly higher on tests of spatial ability. Girls with this condition play more with "boys' toys" and less with "girls' toys" than unaffected controls. Many studies find positive correlations between testosterone levels in normal males and measures of spatial ability. However, the relationship is complex.

            It is possible that sexual dimorphism may exist in regard to intellectual abilities in humans. Men may have evolved greater spatial abilities, possibly as a result of certain behaviors, such as navigating during a hunt that they were more likely to be involved in during humans' evolutionary history. Similarly, women may have evolved to devote more mental resources to gathering food, as well as understanding and tracking relationships and reading others' emotional states in order for them to be able to better understand their social situation.                                 

                                                                                                                                                         

            Another possibility is the effects of socialization. Girls are sometimes discouraged from studying math or science. Similarly, boys are sometimes discouraged from displaying empathy, or from spending much time reading for pleasure.

Methods:

            The MRT tested our ability to look at a drawing of a given object and find the same object within a set of dissimilar objects. The only difference between the original object and the chosen object was that they were presented at different angles.

            The MRT has two parts. Our instructor gave us three minutes for each of the two parts. Each part had two pages. When we finished part one or as in my case when the time was up we stopped. We were not allowed to go to part two until our instructor told us to.

            The instructions that I neglected to read also said; Work as quickly as you can without sacrificing accuracy. Your score on this test will reflect both the correct and incorrect responses. Therefore, it will not be to your advantage to guess unless you have some idea which choice is correct.

            Mental rotation is the ability to rotate mental representations of two-dimensional and three-dimensional objects. Mental rotation is somewhat localized to the right cerebral hemisphere. It is thought to take place largely in the same areas as perception. It is associated with the rate of spatial processing and intelligence.

            In a mental rotation test, the subject is asked to compare four 3D objects (or letters) and state if they are the same image or if they are mirror images (enantiomorphs). Commonly, the test will have pairs of images each rotated a specific amount of degrees (eg. 0º, 60º, 120º or 180º). Some pairs will be the same image rotated, and others will be mirrored. The subject will be

                                                                                                                                                         

shown a set number of the pairs. The subject will be judged on how accurately and rapidly they can distinguish between the mirrored and non-mirrored pairs.

            Roger Shepard and Jacqueline Metzler originally discovered this phenomenon. Their research showed that the reaction time for participants to decide if the pair of items matched or not was linearly proportional to the angle of rotation from the original position. That is, the more an object has been rotated from the original, the longer it takes an individual to determine if the 2 images are of the same object or enantiomorphs.

            In further research, Shepard and Cooper have proposed the concept of a "Mental Imagery" facility, which is responsible for the ability to mentally rotate visual forms. Additionally, it has been found it does not matter on which axis an object is rotated, but rather the degree to which it is rotated that has the most significant effect on response time. So rotations within the depth plane (i.e., 2D rotations) and rotations in depth (3D rotations) behave similarly. Thus, the matching requires more time as the amount of depth rotation increases, just as for within the depth plane.

Results:

            Our class was the anomaly since our women’s average was higher than our men’s. The females in our class scored a 98/4= 25 MRT answers correct average, while our men scored a 379/17= 22 correct average. We had 17 men and only four females in our class. To come up with these results we divided total amount of correct MRT test answers by the number of people in that gender.

            The results for the three class averages combined in 2010 was; 983/41=24 for the males, and 362/18=20 for the females.

                                                                                                                                                          

Figure #1

                                                                                                                                                                                       

Figure 1: Examples of pairs of objects presented in the experiment by Shepard and Metzler (1971) that differ by a rotation in the picture plane (A), by a rotation in depth (B), or that are intrinsically different (specifically, enantiomorphic) in shape (C).

                                                                                                                                                       

Figure #2 Average scores between men and Women.

           

Discussion of Results:

            Our results were pretty close to the average scores of the past, but our men scored lower than every average except that of 1996. Our women scored a higher average except the one from 2001. So I think it’s safe to say our males didn’t do as well as expected and our women did better than expected.

            There may have been some errors in the experiment that could have affected the outcome. Some people may have cheated by saying they had a better score than they really did. Some people may have done the equations incorrectly which would produce an incorrect score. Others may not have figured out how to get the score total correct when circling the number of correct

answers or crossing out the wrong ones. Of course this is all just speculation it’s possible everyone followed the directions perfectly and honestly. The only obvious error is the disproportionate ratio of men (41) to women (18).

                                                                                                                                                       

            However as Dale Jacobson and I discussed in class we decided everything besides the ratio difference probably didn’t effect the over all results very much. I used myself as an example by showing that even if I had scored a 40 instead of a 12, our male class average would have been virtually unchanged. We would still have the same average when rounded to the nearest whole number.

Conclusion:

            With this MRT lab experiment we helped prove is a difference in visual and spatial abilities between genders, although this time in wasn’t a significant one. There was only a four point differential in our overall averages and the females in my class did better than the men. I’m pretty sure that my verbal abilities are better than my visual and spatial aptitude. I’ve always done very well in English but poor in Math, which may explain my low score on the MRT. Overall I think this experiment was a success because the results were similar to those of the past and everyone participated willingly.

                                                                                                                                                        

                         References:

            Smythe, K. (2008). Thinking Differently: Differences Between Men and Women. New                             York: Wiley.

            Bannon, M.E. (2004). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge,                             MA: Belknap Press.

            University Of Toronto (2004, August 5). Study Explains Spatial Orientation Differences                             Between Sexes; Inner Ear Size May Be Determinant. ScienceDaily. Retrieved                                 May 3, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­                                                                                    /releases/2004/08/040805091122.htm.

Appendix:

            Our class average scores; Men 397/17=22, Women 98/4=25.

Three class averages combined; Men 983/41=24, Women 362/18=20.

mm3 = millimeters cubed. cm3 = centimeters cubed.