Spatial activity participation in childhood and adolescence: consistency and relations to spatial thinking in adolescence

Abstract

Background Prior research has revealed positive effects of spatial activity participation (e.g., playing with blocks, sports) on current and future spatial skills. However, research has not examined the degree to which spatial activity participation remains stable over time, and little is known about how participating in spatial activities at multiple points in development impacts spatial thinking. In this study, adolescents completed measures of spatial thinking and questionnaires assessing their current and previous participation in spatial activities. Results Participation in childhood spatial activities predicted adolescent spatial activity participation, and the relation was stronger for females than for males. Adolescents’ current participation in spatial activities predicted spatial thinking skills, whereas participation in childhood spatial activities predicted adolescents’ spatial habits of mind, even when accounting for factors such as gender and academic performance. No cumulative benefit was incurred due to participating in spatial activities in both childhood and adolescence, and a lack of spatial activities in childhood was not made up for by later spatial activity participation. Conclusions These findings reveal a consistently positive relationship in spatial activity participation between childhood and adolescence. Results highlight the importance of participating in spatial activities during childhood, and underscore the differential impact that participation in spatial activities during childhood versus adolescence has on different facets of adolescents’ spatial thinking. Implications for the timing of interventions is discussed.

Individual Differences and Skill Training in Cognitive Mapping: How and Why People Differ

“…Research has shown, for example, that performance on spatial tests such as mental rotation is correlated with the experience of playing video games (Feng, Spence, & Pratt, 2007 ; but see Redick, Unsworth, Kane, & Hambrick, 2017 ; Unsworth et al., 2015 ). And students' performance in academic learning is discussed in relation to past experience of participating in spatial activities (Peterson, Weinberger, Uttal, Kolvoord, & Green, 2020 ). In the context of cognitive mapping, a greater amount of experience of spatial activities correlates with better wayfinding performance and the tendency to use orientation strategies in navigation, as well as higher mental rotation scores (Lawton & Kallai, 2002 ; Moè, Jansen, & Pietsch, 2018 ; Vieites et al., 2020 ).…”

Diversity of spatial activities and parents' spatial talk complexity predict preschoolers' gains in spatial skills

“…Studies have shown that engaging in spatial activities (e.g., puzzles and block building) positively influences spatial thinking and reasoning (Baenninger & Newcombe, 1989, 1995; Casey et al., 2008; Cherney, 2008; Costa‐Giomi, 1999; Doyle et al., 2012; Jirout & Newcombe, 2015; Levine et al., 2012; Ozel et al., 2004; Weckbacher & Okamoto, 2012). Further longitudinal work showed that participation in spatial activities in childhood predicted spatially related problem‐solving strategies and spatial ability as well as participation in spatial activities in adolescence (Peterson et al., 2020). Even a small amount of training (e.g., formal curriculum, spatial video games, etc.)…”

Spatial reasoning in context: bridging cognitive and educational perspectives of spatial-mathematics relations

“…Finally, there are still parts of the system that are important driving factors not currently being considered, such as lived experiences (Coutrot et al, 2022;Harris et al, 2022), the tendency to apply spatial thinking, regardless of skill level (Kim and Bednarz, 2013;Peterson et al, 2020), and the tools and representations indicative of spatial thinking but not measured by current tests (Newcombe, 2018;Logan et al, 2022). These factors are influential and should be incorporated to support student learning (National Research Council, 2006).…”