Addressing the complexity of spatial teaching: a narrative review of barriers and enablers

Abstract

Extensive research has established that spatial ability is a crucial factor for achieving success in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). However, challenges that educators encounter while teaching spatial skills remain uncertain. The purpose of this study is to develop a research framework that examines the interrelationships, barriers, and enablers amongst various educational components, including schools, teachers, students, classrooms, and training programs, that are encountered when teaching for spatial ability development. A thorough examination of international research, in combination with a detailed review of the primary Science and Mathematics curricula in Ireland, Latvia, Sweden, and the Netherlands, is undertaken to acquire a more concentrated comprehension of the incorporation of spatial components in the curriculum. The review seeks to establish the fundamental factors that enable or hinder teachers in terms of curriculum, pedagogy, pedagogical content knowledge, and spatialized classroom practices.

Lesson Study as a Professional Development Model for Teaching Spatial Ability in Primary STEM

“…Despite spatial ability being a fundamental aspect of intelligence [13], many young people across Europe, especially girls, fail to develop it to a level that enables successful engagement with STEM learning [14]. Given the multifaceted nature of spatial ability development-influenced by educational factors such as curricular design, institutional practices, classroom environment, teacher quality, and student characteristics-targeted interventions are essential for addressing these challenges [15]. Moreover, spatial ability is often relegated to the curricular periphery, thus posing significant challenges to the improvement thereof through changes in teaching practices.…”

“…Moreover, spatial ability is often relegated to the curricular periphery, thus posing significant challenges to the improvement thereof through changes in teaching practices. These challenges stem from several factors, including limited teacher knowledge regarding the impact and significance of spatial ability, insufficient experience in integrating it into lessons, time constraints, a dearth of instructional materials, and a lack of well-structured lesson plans [15,16]. Consequently, educators must engage in continuous professional development (PD) to surmount these hurdles effectively.…”

Data_Sheet_1.pdf

“…Relatedly, these findings may be challenging to transfer to situated contexts in the U.S. or beyond as pre-and in-service teacher professional learning opportunities may not adequately prepare or support EEEs to teach spatial reasoning through mathematics (Ginsburg et al, 2006;Clements and Sarama, 2011;Gagnier et al, 2022;Gilligan-Lee et al, 2022;Bufasi et al, 2024). While reforms to policy and standards have been recommended (Gilligan-Lee et al, 2022), changes to teacher preparation and professional development programs are also needed to give EEEs opportunities to learn to teach spatial reasoning.…”

“…However, number sense is often the primary focus of early mathematics instruction, and spatial reasoning is de-emphasized within both classroom instruction and written curricula (Copley, 2010;Clements and Sarama, 2011;Bruce et al, 2012;Gilligan-Lee et al, 2022;Parviainen et al, 2023). While early elementary educators (EEEs) [i.e., those teaching kindergarten through grade 2 (K-2)] are the best-positioned professionals to integrate spatial reasoning into young children's mathematics instruction, they receive highly variant pre-or in-service professional development and support to teach spatial reasoning through mathematics (Ginsburg et al, 2006;Clements and Sarama, 2011;Gagnier et al, 2022;Gilligan-Lee et al, 2022;Bufasi et al, 2024). One way to promote EEEs teaching spatial reasoning is by supporting them in integrating spatialized teaching practices into their current mathematics instruction (Hawes et al, 2017).…”

“…While there is no national curriculum or standards in the U.S., the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSS-M; Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative, 2010) were initially adopted by 46 states plus the District of Columbia and continue to be used in part or whole by many states (see Edgerton, 2020). Researchers have taken up similar work in a European context (see Bufasi et al, 2024) where national curricula exist; this work proposes a compromise to the opposing viewpoints about standards in the U.S. context. Specifically, Boda et al (2022) identified implicit relations between the CCSS-M and spatial reasoning, while Gilligan-Lee et al (2022) asserted that curricular and policy changes are necessary to support EEEs in teaching spatial reasoning.…”