Spatial Thinking in Education

While it was long believed that spatial skill levels are biologically determined, there is mounting evidence that training enhances spatial performance (Baenninger & Newcombe, 1989, 1995; Huttenlocher, Levine, & Vevea, 1998; Loewenstein & Gentner, 1998; Taylor, Uttal, Fisher, & Mazepa, 2001; Uttal, Fisher, & Taylor, in press). For example, gains in children's spatial skill are substantially greater during periods of schooling than vacation periods (Huttenlocher et al., 1998). Ongoing work provides some indication about what aspects of experience are critical (Gentner & Rattermann, 1991; Huttenlocher et al., 2002; Kotovsky & Gentner, 1996; Uttal, 2000, in press). A basic theme of SILC research will be to determine how to maximize spatial skill and address the issue of individual differences, including differences related to gender and to SES. Currently, spatial learning is a relatively neglected topic in education (Shea, Lubinski & Benbow, 1993).

We aim to measure children's spatial skills on entry to school and track how spatial input in the classroom is related to the development of these skills. Work in literacy suggests that children with deficits in their experience with language do poorly in school and often are unable to "catch up" through the experience of schooling. In fact, it is reported that this gap widens over time (Lee & Burkam, 2002). We wonder whether there is an analogue in spatial reasoning. Do those who enter with deficits in spatial reasoning also fail to catch up, and does an early gap widen as for literacy? Can this problem be ameliorated with curricular change? In order to address these questions, we plan both to develop a spatial assessment battery and to develop ways to enrich spatial input in existing school curricula, including the use of sketching.

Point of Contact: Susan Levine, Louis Gomez, David Uttal

Relevant Background Publications

• Baenninger, M., & Newcombe, N. (1989). The role of experience on spatial test performance: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 20, 327-344.>
• Baenninger, M., & Newcombe, N. (1995). Environmental input to the development of sex related differences in spatial and mathematical ability. Learning and Individual Differences, 7, 363-379.
• Gentner, D., & Rattermann, M. J. (1991). Language and the career of similarity. In S. A. Gelman & J.P. Byrnes (Eds.), Perspectives on language and thought: Interrelations in development, (pp. 225-277). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Huttenlocher, J., Levine, S., & Vevea, J. (1998). Environmental input and cognitive growth: A study using time-period comparisons. Child Development, 69, 1012-1029.
• Huttenlocher, J., Duffy, S., & Levine, S. (2002). Infants and toddlers discriminate amount: Are they measuring? Psychological Science, 13, 244-249.
• Kotovsky, L., & Gentner, D. (1996). Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity. Child Development, 67, 2797-2822.
• Loewenstein, J., & Gentner, D. (2001). Spatial mapping in preschoolers: Close comparisons facilitate far mappings. Journal of Cognition & Development, 2, 189-219.
• Shea, D. L., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P. (2001). Importance of assessing spatial ability in intellectually talented young adolescents: a 20-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 604-614.
• Uttal, D. (2000). Seeing the big picture: Map use and the development of spatial cognition. Developmental Science, 3, 247-286.
• Uttal, D. H. (in press). Maps and spatial thinking: Developmental, cultural and historical perspectives. To appear in L. Namy (Ed.), Symbols and thought: Proceedings of the Emory cognition conference. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Uttal, D. H., Fisher, J. A., & Taylor, H. A. (in press). Words and maps: Developmental changes in mental models of spatial information acquired from depictions and descriptions. Developmental Science.