Enhancing Spatial Ability: A New Integrated Hybrid Training Approach for Engineering and Architecture Students

Abstract

Spatial ability (SA) is the mental ability to create, maintain, and manipulate abstract visual representations. Studies have shown that SA is a strong predictor of success in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). More recently, attention has extended to the field of architecture, a discipline where spatial thinking skills are fundamental, yet students in this field have not been extensively examined in terms of their spatial abilities. Therefore, SA skills are essential for students in engineering and architecture during their initial academic phases. This research was conducted within an interdisciplinary academic college and describes in detail a new integrated and hybrid training program that is part of a recent mixed-methods study. This program was built to effectively enhance the SA of first-year undergraduate students in a cost-effective manner, using a multi-method teaching strategy. The training program spanned more than 20 h across four sessions. This article focuses on the training methodology, encompassing four key phases, and serves as a complementary article to the one that was just published separately, describing the effectiveness of this intervention program as measured using SA standard tests. Notably, in certain scenarios, these phases were combined rather than being standalone independent modules. The traditional teaching method (TTM) lays the foundation for SA knowledge via lectures and collaborative interactions. Subsequently, computer-based learning (CBL), using tools such as SketchUp and GeoGebra, facilitates in-depth virtual geometric exploration. Augmented reality (AR) training offers an immersive learning experience, allowing students to interact with 3D objects in real-world environments. Finally, the building real model (BRM) phase transforms 2D designs into tangible 3D structures. This study highlights the comprehensive training approach, emphasizing the robust learning environment facilitated by integrating these phases as part of the full mixed-methods research. The suggested integrated training program was qualitatively explored through post-intervention evaluations to understand participants’ experiences and perceptions.

1. Introduction

Studies on intelligence, education, and science often address human cognitive abilities, focusing on their evolution and implications for performance [1]. Within Gardner’s framework of multiple intelligences [2], spatial ability (SA) is highlighted as a distinct cognitive domain. Gardner (1983) conceptualized SA as the ability to mentally construct and visualize spatial scenarios, thereby facilitating an accurate perception of the visual realm. Building on this, Maier (1996) [3] further categorized SA into five specific types, including spatial perception, visualization, mental rotation, spatial relations, and spatial orientation. Spatial perception involves the ability to accurately identify the orientation of objects in relation to oneself despite misleading information, such as determining verticality and horizontality when visual cues conflict with gravitational cues. Visualization is the capability to mentally manipulate, transform, and rotate spatial configurations, essential for technical and design tasks that require envisioning complex manipulations of shapes. Mental rotation refers to the rapid and accurate manipulation of two- or three-dimensional objects in one’s mind, crucial for tasks involving various perspectives or assembly operations. Spatial relations entail understanding the relative positions and relationships of objects in space, supporting tasks such as identifying objects from different angles or mapping out spatial layouts. Lastly, spatial orientation involves maintaining one’s orientation with respect to the environment when moving or changing directions, vital for effective navigation and spatial decision-making in dynamic settings. Each of these abilities plays a critical role in various academic, professional, and everyday contexts, highlighting the importance of developing robust spatial skills.

Numerous studies underscore the integral role of SA in our interactions with the environment [4,5,6]. Hence, SA is not merely an innate trait, but a skill that exhibits plasticity and can be developed and refined [7,8]. Earlier studies on SA primarily focused on its correlation with children’s mathematical proficiencies [9,10,11,12] and its link to spatial perception and visualization, emphasizing its significance across various academic and professional sectors [13,14]. Thus, research highlighted SA’s role as a key predictor of success in STEM disciplines among college students [15]. A prevailing theory suggests that mathematical thinking is inherently bolstered by spatial–mental representations, enhancing problem-solving capabilities [16]. Recent academic endeavors have emphasized architecture, highlighting the crucial role of SA in architectural practices [16]. Architects, responsible for design and evaluation, require a harmonious blend of mathematical and spatial skills [17]. While the importance of SA in architecture is evident, research exploring its direct correlation with architectural academic success is limited. However, emerging evidence suggests that architectural students, like engineering students, demonstrate enhanced SA after their foundational academic year [18,19]. Despite extensive research on SA, there is a growing interest in understanding how targeted SA training can boost performance in specific disciplines [20].

Although SA is a well-studied concept, there are but a few studies that have investigated the way training and improving SA among undergraduate students can enhance their performance in the field that they have chosen. Maier, who introduced the five different types of SA, wrote that, based on psychological research findings, all five elements of SA must be specifically trained. He further introduced a modular construction system based on the traditional system where polygons are joined with rubber bands. He used real models because, in his view, those were the most successful in improving students SA [3]. Although effective, this intervention is costly, as it requires an expert teacher, and it is also time consuming and needs a lot of models if the students work individually [21]. Later, a computer-based training program was developed by Aszalos and Bako. This intervention sought to improve students’ spatial geometry ability and, according to the results, did so with success. Nevertheless, this intervention was preliminary and limited in terms of the type of ability tested to improve geometry and the number of subjects.

Sorby [22] reported a study conducted among engineering students and examined what develops their spatial imagery ability. It was found that, in courses where students were required to draw models by hand (rather than using a computer) and work with tangible models (rather than models on a computer monitor), there was a development in their spatial performance. Special courses given to students whose mastery of spatial skills was low contributed to a marked improvement in their achievement. These findings also indicate the ability to develop SA.

More recently, attempts were made to use virtual reality training programs to help improve students’ SA; they yielded some success but were only tried on a few of the SA subtypes (mental rotation, spatial visualization, and spatial orientation) and on a very small group of subjects [19]. Though SA seems to be an essential skill for both abovementioned disciplines, neither include any direct measuring or training in their curriculum (to the best of our knowledge).

The current research explores an integrated hybrid training program designed to enhance students’ SA. It was designed as a concise, practical, and immersive program that combines traditional pedagogical techniques with modern technological approaches, aiming to attract and interest students while diversifying and optimizing their learning experience. This proposed training program contains hands-on exercises and collaborative tasks, utilizing digital resources to enhance students’ spatial cognition, visualization, and problem-solving skills in a spatial environment. It spans over 20 academic hours, with 2 additional hours dedicated to examining students’ SA level individually before and after the program. The first session mainly uses traditional teaching strategies to introduce the concepts of SA. Later sessions integrate various teaching methods, including computer-based learning on digital platforms, direct instruction, frontal learning, augmented reality (AR) environments, and the construction of three-dimensional models as visualization and learning tools, all complemented by collaborative discussions led by both teachers and students. A complementary article concerning this same intervention, which was recently published [20], quantitatively describes the program’s efficiency by showing that the intervention was very effective in enhancing students’ SA regardless of faculty (engineering or architecture), gender, and initial mathematics level, as shown in Figure 1. Although that study provided valuable insights, it did not address the pedagogical methodology, and it did not offer detailed information on the content of the hybrid integrated training program itself. Additionally, it lacked insights into the perceptions and experiences of the participants. Following this gap, these all-complementary evaluations are now presented, showing the effectiveness of the training program, which is qualitatively explored through post-intervention evaluations. This approach aims to examine participants’ experiences and perceptions in depth, providing a comprehensive understanding of the intervention’s impact. The present paper serves as both a continuation and an expansion. While the initial research was data-centric, this paper shifts the focus toward a qualitative exploration of participants’ experiences and perceptions. Moreover, a significant portion of this work is dedicated to detailing the hybrid integrated training program and its various components. By combining the quantitative findings from the previous study with the qualitative insights presented in this paper, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the intervention’s framework, its effectiveness, and the experience that it offers.

2. Methods

This research was conducted at Shenkar College located in Israel. Shenkar offers programs in engineering, design, and art, which are divided into the following three primary faculties: the Pernick Faculty of Engineering, the Azrieli Faculty of Design, and the Multidisciplinary School of Art. This unique blend of faculties promotes a collaborative environment, allowing for the integration of cutting-edge technology with contemporary design, engineering, and artistic principles.

2.1. Research Participants

The study participants were first-year students at Shenkar. The first group, representing the engineering faculty, was drawn from the departments of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Software Engineering, and Chemical Engineering. These students, during their first year, are exposed to an intensive curriculum in mathematics and physics. Courses such as calculus and linear algebra are pivotal, demanding a deep understanding of spatial concepts.

The second group, which is the architecture group, symbolizing the design faculty, consisted of students from the Department of Interior, Structural, and Environmental Design. The essence of architectural education is the ability to perceive, represent, and manipulate three-dimensional spaces. Students utilize a range of tools, from traditional sketching to advanced CAD software, to bring their architectural plans and visions to life.

2.2. Participation Criteria

To be eligible for the study, participants had to meet several criteria. They had to be in their first year of either engineering or architecture. Proficiency in Hebrew was a must, and they should not have undertaken any prior academic studies. Furthermore, they should have completed 12 years of secondary education, having been assessed in mathematics and English as per Israel’s education standards. In addition to these criteria, and following the ethical considerations, every participant was informed about the study’s objectives, and they provided their consent before participation.

2.3. Sample Size and Structure

The research encompassed 154 first-year students, with 79 from engineering and 75 from architecture. In the engineering group, 47 students participated in the SA training program, leaving 32 for the control group. In the architecture group, 42 students participated in the program, with 33 in the control group.

2.4. Integrated Hybrid Training Approach

The training program adopted an integrated hybrid approach, combining traditional teaching methods with modern technological tools and hands-on practical experiences. By integrating various teaching and learning methods, the program aimed to provide the students with a rich and immersive learning experience, equipping them with the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively improve their SA. The following sections detail each specific method or component of this integrated hybrid approach.

2.4.1. Traditional Teaching Method (TTM)

This method primarily involved traditional teaching methods (TTMs), serving as a cornerstone for the training program by laying the groundwork for acquiring the fundamental knowledge and theory of SA. This multifaceted approach emphasized face-to-face teaching and direct communication between the lecturer and students. The meeting began with a comprehensive lecture on the fundamentals of SA, extending beyond mere definitions to detailed explanations of cognitive processes such as mental rotation, spatial visualization, and spatial perception. Practical examples were introduced, showcasing spatial ability applications in fields such as engineering and architecture, for example, reading 2D and 3D graphs and schemes, interpreting technical drawings, and predicting changes in design elements. One demonstration included converting a 2D floorplan into a 3D object, underscoring the importance of scale, orientation, and perspective. To promote a deeper understanding, the lecturer utilized various visual presentations and pedagogical tools, including whiteboard sketches, diagrams, and three-dimensional models. These visual aids complemented the oral instruction, enhancing the students’ comprehension of spatial concepts. Discussions played a crucial role in this teaching approach. The lecturer posed open-ended questions to stimulate critical thinking, fostering an active learning environment and encouraging a more profound understanding of the subject. Peer learning was another significant aspect of the session. The students were divided into workgroups of approximately eight students each, tasked with collaborative exercises using spatial assignments, further enhancing their spatial understanding through active dialogue and problem-solving. By integrating these elements, the first session skillfully combined traditional teaching methods, bridging theoretical concepts with practical applications and setting a strong foundation for the subsequent phases of the training program.

Figure 2 presents part of the various cases that were discussed together with the students, both within the entire class and in smaller workgroups. The students were required to identify the cross-sectional shape that would result from the intersection of the cutting plane and a geometric solid in the following three different orientations: oblique, horizontal, and vertical. The solid appeared first as a single, simple geometric object and then as multiple geometric objects combined into a single structure. In every case, whether discussed in groups or with the entire class, the scenarios were thoroughly analyzed, and we collectively drew conclusions on how to determine the cross-sectional shape easily and effectively on the surface. This was achieved not by enforcing a particular way of thinking but by proposing a range of problem-solving and thinking strategies that emerged from the student collective. Each student then had the option to adopt the thinking and problem-solving approach that was most effective and efficient for them from among the alternatives discussed in class.

2.4.2. Computer-Based Learning (CBL)

In this educational approach, the students familiarized themselves with the essential commands of SketchUp 2022 software and explored pre-designed models using the online software GeoGebra [25]. These software tools were chosen for their user-friendliness and the facility with which one can become acquainted, enhancing the exploration of geometric three-dimensional objects and their interactions with each other and different surfaces. During the SketchUp module, the students created basic volumetric objects. They observed objects from various angles and assembled, segmented, and overlapped diverse objects, all within a three-dimensional environment. These skills, acquired swiftly, empowered the students to understand orientation, visualization, spatial relations, and the intricacies of merging and separating objects [26]. Additionally, the students used GeoGebra, which is dynamic mathematics software that integrates multiple mathematical geometry and algebra domains via an interactive experiential platform. Figure 3 demonstrates a few examples presented to the students to allow them to visualize and manipulate objects (volumes) in real time, cut them via interactive planes, etc. Particularly for SA, the three-dimensional graphics view offers a valuable tool for visualizing and exploring geometric objects in 3D space and a better understanding of the properties of each basic three-dimensional shape such as prisms, cubes, spheres, and pyramids. Renowned as versatile mathematical software, GeoGebra seamlessly integrates domains such as geometry, algebra, and calculus. As the session progressed, the tasks increased in complexity. Within SketchUp, the students faced the intricate task of visualizing a three-dimensional model of a detailed volumetric entity from its two-dimensional layout. They needed to harness their spatial knowledge to interpret the design and produce the corresponding 3D model. Such challenges trained the students’ abilities in mental rotation and visualization, which were further enhanced by the software’s features. Instant feedback from the software not only solidified their grasp of the virtual environment but also allowed for quick error corrections. At the conclusion of the session, the students exhibited their geometric dissections, reflecting upon the obstacles that they surmounted, the strategies that they implemented, and the skills that they believed to have improved.

2.4.3. Augmented Reality Training (AR-T)

The Augmented Reality Training (AR-T) component utilizes AR technology to foster a highly interactive learning environment, significantly enhancing students’ spatial visualization skills. This interactive module empowers students to engage with 3D models, such as cubes, spheres, and complex polyhedrons, in a real-world context through AR, deepening their grasp of spatial relationships and geometric properties. This technology facilitates the dynamic manipulation of these models and integrates the other various teaching and learning methods and practical applications, making abstract concepts tangible and understandable [27,28].

During the AR-T sessions, students only need to simply utilize the AR application on their mobile devices to interact with virtual 3D models, including a diverse array of shapes such as cubes, spheres, cones, cylinders, pyramids, and various prisms. These objects are seamlessly overlaid onto their immediate environment, allowing students to rotate, scale, and dissect these figures to explore their spatial properties in real-time. Figure 4 depicts screenshots taken from the AR mobile application. In this example, the students manually adjust and rotate these 3D objects in real-time while integrating them into their physical environment. For example, by rotating a cone at different angles, students gain an intuitive understanding of the cone’s envelope and simultaneously discuss the conic sections and their mathematical underpinnings, a process that enhances their cognitive abilities in a tangible and engaging manner [29].

Our primary goal in incorporating AR into our educational framework is to enhance situational awareness among students. AR bridges the gap between SA practical application by enabling them to manipulate 3D objects in real time within a tangible, real-world context. This not only deepens their understanding of spatial relations and dimensions but also transforms the learning process into a fun and interactive experience. Students find these AR sessions not only educational but also enjoyable and engaging, underscoring the technology’s ability to enhance learning through active participation and enjoyment.

Further research underscores AR’s significant impact on educational outcomes, suggesting that it sharpens specific cognitive abilities and broadly improves how students engage with and retain information. A meta-analysis by Chang et al. [30] illustrates that AR can substantially benefit various learning domains, particularly in performance tasks that demand high levels of cognitive engagement and critical thinking.

The versatility of AR technology is evident in its application across a wide range of educational settings and disciplines. It has proven particularly effective in language and social studies fields, where its interactive nature fosters positive learner responses and enhances motivation. Over time, the application of AR in education has evolved from simple visualization tasks to complex, interactive, and immersive learning experiences that cater to diverse learning styles and needs, demonstrating its potential to revolutionize education [31].

2.4.4. Building Real Models (BRMs)

This session aimed to consolidate the students’ spatial skills through hands-on, tangible experiences. The students were given cartons and glue to construct real, physical, and unsophisticated 3D models. This method of instruction encouraged active, experiential learning, enabling the students to physically manifest their understanding of spatial concepts. The session began with a brief demonstration by an instructor, illustrating how to translate a 2D plan or scheme into a 3D model. The initial task for students was to replicate this process by building a simple geometric shape, such as a cube or a pyramid. As the session progressed, the complexity of the models increased. The students moved on to more complicated objects. One notable exercise involved the construction of a small-scale model. The students were given plans and reference images, and they had to use their spatial abilities to interpret these 2D resources and construct the corresponding 3D model. As the students built their models, they were able to physically manipulate the shapes and elements, giving them a tactile sense of spatial relations. This hands-on manipulation, paired with the mental process of interpreting the schemes, provided a comprehensive, multi-sensory learning experience that strongly reinforced the students’ spatial abilities.

Group discussions and reflections were an integral part of this session. After each construction task, the students shared their models, discussed their thought processes, and talked about the challenges that they faced and the strategies that they used. This reflective phase facilitated deeper understanding and learning, as the students could learn from their own experiences as well as those of their peers.

3. Results

Data Presentation and Analysis (Post-Training Evaluation)

This study, by utilizing a qualitative research approach, aimed to understand the experiences and perceptions of participants after their involvement in the intervention. This was achieved by using a Google Form questionnaire, which enabled the collection of in-depth insights from 66 out of the 89 participants in the intervention group, resulting in a 74.2% response rate. The focus was on assessing any improvements in spatial abilities post-intervention, identifying which components were most impactful, evaluating the components’ effectiveness through participant rankings, gathering constructive feedback for future improvements, and understanding how the acquired skills have since been applied in academic and daily contexts. The collected data provided valuable insights into the intervention program’s effectiveness, with the findings detailed below.

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the intervention on the students’ SA. As part of the questionnaire, the participants responded to the following multiple-choice question:

“Question #1: Do you feel that the intervention program has benefited you, and to what extent do you feel there is an improvement in your spatial ability now?”.

The responses revealed that 51 students (67.1%) experienced significant improvement, 19 students (25%) reported slight to moderate improvement, 4 students (5.3%) observed no change, and 2 students (2.6%) felt a decrease in their spatial abilities. The results are depicted in Figure 5.

In response to the next open-ended question, “Question #2: What was more effective during the entire intervention program?”, the students shared their perspectives on the program’s effectiveness, highlighting the successful integration of traditional teaching methods with innovative technological tools. A thematic analysis of these responses revealed a consensus around the integrated nature of the program. This integration was frequently mentioned as enriching the learning experience, providing a well-rounded educational environment. The common reply was the significant enhancement in spatial visualization, particularly during design tasks, following the intervention. Furthermore, many students notably highlighted the transformative effect of the hands-on exercises, especially those involving augmented reality (AR), in advancing their spatial visualization skills.

One of the responses that reflects most of the answers and expresses the main idea of the responses came from an architecture student who said the following: “The program offered a blend of diverse and enriching experiences. It wasn’t just about learning. It was more like experiential teaching”. Another student echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the program’s multifaceted nature, as also evident in many other responses, stating, “The variety of methods, from hands-on model building to the use of augmented reality (AR), made each session unique and challenging”.

The questionnaire also included a section where the participants ranked the four components of the intervention program based on their effectiveness. These rankings offered a nuanced view of the participants’ experiences and their preferences.

The weighted point ranking calculation rationale was employed to provide a quantifiable measure of the participants’ preferences. Each rank was assigned a point value, with Rank 1 being the most effective (4 points) and Rank 4 being the least effective (1 point). The number of students who ranked each component at each level was multiplied by the corresponding point value. The component with the highest total points was deemed the most effective.

Computer-Based Learning (CBL): Emerging as the most favored component, CBL was ranked as the most effective by a significant 60.6% of the students (40 students). The blend of traditional and modern learning through software tools such as SketchUp and GeoGebra likely resonated deeply with the participants, offering them a structured yet flexible learning environment. The weighted point system, which assigned 4 points for a first-place rank, 3 points for a second-place rank, etc., yielded a total of 224 points for CBL.

Augmented Reality Training (AR-T): Positioned as the second most effective component, AR training was ranked top by 15.2% of the students (10 students). The innovative and immersive nature of AR, allowing the students to interact with 3D models in real time, offered a unique and engaging learning experience. AR-T accumulated a total of 154 points based on the weighted point system.

Traditional Teaching Method (TTM): The foundational component of the program, the TTM, was ranked most effective by 7.6% of the students (5 students). While it provided essential background knowledge and face-to-face interactions, the allure of the technologically advanced components seemed to have overshadowed its impact to some extent. The TTM garnered a total of 121 points.

Building Real Models (BRMs): BRM received a top ranking by 16.7% of the students (11 students). While the hands-on nature of this component allowed the students to tangibly interact with spatial concepts, it seems that the other components, especially the technologically driven ones, left a stronger impression on the participants. BRM secured a total of 161 points.

To illustrate these data,

Table 1. Ranking of intervention components. The data present the number of students who ranked each component, along with the corresponding percentage out of the total students who completed the questionnaire.

Component	Rank 1	Rank 2	Rank 3	Rank 4	Total Points	Description
Computer-Based Learning (CBL)	40 60.6%	15 22.7%	8 12.1%	3 4.5%	224	The most favored component, a blend of traditional and modern learning tools such as SketchUp and GeoGebra.
Building Real Models (BRMs)	11 16.7%	21 31.8%	20 30.3%	14 21.2%	161	Hands-on component allowing tangible interaction with spatial concepts.
Augmented Reality Training (AR-T)	10 15.2%	20 30.3%	18 27.3%	18 27.3%	154	Innovative and immersive, allows interaction with 3D models in real time and in use mainly for mental rotation capability.
Traditional Teaching Method (TTM)	5 7.6%	10 15.2%	20 30.3%	31 47%	121	Foundational component providing essential background knowledge and face-to-face interactions.

lists the number of students who ranked each educational component along with the percentage of the total responses. This table provides insight into students’ preferences for interventions such as computer-based learning, building real models, augmented reality training, and traditional teaching methods.

In the same way, Figure 6 visually illustrates these rankings through “weighted scores of intervention components”, demonstrating the total points that each method received based on the effectiveness rankings from the students.

Through a thematic analysis of the responses to the question “What would you change in the intervention program?”, the participants offered constructive critiques. A recurring theme was the desire for extended sessions, allowing for a more in-depth exploration of each component. Additionally, there was a call for the integration of more sophisticated AR tools, suggesting that the participants found value in technology-driven components and were eager for advancements in this area.

Additionally, and derived from a thematic analysis of the students’ responses to the question “How is the training program currently assisting you in your studies and learning during the semester?”, many respondents highlighted the direct applicability of the skills honed during the intervention in their coursework. Notably, the architecture students seemed to derive more pronounced benefits from the training. One architecture student remarked, “The skills I’ve acquired have been invaluable, especially when interpreting basic design sketches and plans.” This sentiment was echoed by other architecture students, indicating that the intervention had tangible benefits that extended beyond the confines of the program, influencing their performance and daily interactions within their studies. In contrast, the engineering students mentioned the program’s influence to a lesser extent, suggesting that the intervention was particularly impactful for those in architectural studies.

4. Discussion

4.1. Perceived Effectiveness of the Integrated Hybrid Training Program

This research describes in detail an integrated hybrid training program for enhancing SA. It includes a qualitative analysis of participant experiences, covering the various aspects of the program and its benefits. A complementary quantitative analysis conducted in the same environment and with the same participants further supports these findings [20]. It demonstrated that the training program was significantly effective in enhancing SA, as evidenced by improved test scores in both engineering and architecture students, regardless of gender or initial mathematical skill level. These quantitative analyses and examinations confirm the program’s efficacy in enhancing the essential skills required in both academic fields.

As already detailed, the intervention program is structured around the following four main components: traditional teaching methods (TTMs), computer-based learning (CBL), augmented reality training (AR-T), and building real models (BRMs). These components are not standalone modules but are integrated to provide a comprehensive educational experience that applies both traditional and innovative creative teaching methods. Each component of the program effectively enhanced the students’ SA, as discussed.

This study’s investigation into the perceived effectiveness of an integrated hybrid training approach for enhancing SA in engineering and architecture students has yielded substantial insights. The quantitative and qualitative data collected indicate that a significant majority of the participants, over 67%, reported marked improvements in their SA following the intervention. This enhancement underscores the efficacy of combining diverse pedagogical methods in a cohesive educational strategy.

4.2. Contribution of Individual Components

Despite the varying levels of perceived effectiveness attributed to each component, the integration of these methods proved essential in fostering a comprehensive learning environment. The computer-based learning (CBL) component, particularly the use of applications such as SketchUp and GeoGebra, was perceived effective, with the participants ranking it the highest for enhancing their spatial visualization skills. This preference highlights the growing importance of interactive and flexible learning environments that technology offers, enabling students to manipulate and visualize spatial relationships dynamically.

Augmented reality (AR) and hands-on model-building sessions, although ranked differently in terms of perceived individual effectiveness, provided invaluable practical experiences. These components facilitated a tangible interaction with spatial concepts, converting abstract knowledge into accessible and comprehensible skills. For instance, AR facilitated real-time manipulation of 3D models, enhancing the participants’ ability to perceive and interact with spatial dimensions in a way that traditional methods alone could not achieve. As AR technology continues to advance, it brings new challenges and opportunities. Pinandita et al. [32] highlight the ongoing advancements in AR technology, acknowledging the need to address technical and design flaws. However, they also underscore the promising future of AR in education, noting the potential for AR to evolve into more adaptive and context-aware educational tools. This evolution could lead to even more personalized and effective learning experiences, inspiring further exploration and development in this field. Overall, the integration of AR into educational practices not only enhances the teaching of traditional subjects but also revolutionizes how students interact with knowledge. By making learning more engaging, effective, and enjoyable, AR has the potential to transform educational experiences profoundly. Its role in developing essential spatial abilities for STEM fields and other disciplines exemplifies the transformative potential of modern technologies in reshaping educational landscapes and preparing students for future challenges.

Traditional teaching methods (TTMs), while perceived as less innovative, laid the essential groundwork for understanding and engaging with more advanced tools. According to the qualitative results, it was commonly observed and evaluated, as indicated in the questionnaire in the Section 3, that this foundational knowledge was critical for the students to fully benefit from the technologically advanced components of the program.

4.3. Synergistic Effect of Integrated Teaching Methods

The integration of these diverse teaching strategies not only supported varied learning styles but also ensured that no single method’s limitations restricted the educational process. This approach aligns with educational theories that advocate for multimodal teaching strategies, which are shown to enhance learning outcomes and student engagement significantly [27,33,34]. By engaging multiple senses and cognitive processes, the hybrid approach facilitated a richer, more engaging learning experience that was both more enjoyable and more effective. Additionally, common feedback from the students indicated a positive response to the integration, highlighting the benefits of instructional diversity. It is well established that diverse teaching methods contribute to effective learning [35,36].

4.4. Feedback and Potential Improvements

The feedback from the participants suggested potential areas for enhancement. Many indicated that extending the duration of sessions could allow for a deeper exploration of each component, potentially increasing the efficacy of the training. Additionally, incorporating more advanced AR tools was recommended to further enhance the immersive learning experience, suggesting a demand for even more interactive and technologically driven learning environments.

4.5. Conclusion and Future Directions

In conclusion, this study validates the effectiveness of an integrated hybrid training approach in enhancing SA among engineering and architecture students. It provides a comprehensive description of the depth of intervention through hybrid integration, detailing the various teaching methods included in the interventions and their integration. Furthermore, it complements the quantitative data on program effectiveness [2] and reports on participants’ experiences within the program and the perceived effectiveness of its different components and their integration.

This thorough examination not only reaffirms the value of multimodal educational strategies but also serves as a guide for future curriculum development aimed at enhancing critical cognitive skills such as spatial abilities in STEM education.