importance of thinking skills in education

Teaching how to think is just as important as teaching anything else

Lecturer in Critical Thinking, The University of Queensland

Disclosure statement

Peter Ellerton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Queensland provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

A new paper on teaching critical thinking skills in science has pointed out, yet again, the value of giving students experiences that go beyond simple recall or learned procedures.

It is a common lamentation that students are not taught to think, but there is usually an accompanying lack of clarity about exactly what that might mean.

There is a way of understanding this idea that is conceptually easy and delivers a sharp educational focus – a way that focuses on the explicit teaching of thinking skills through an inquiry process, and allows students to effectively evaluate their thinking.

What are thinking skills?

Let’s first understand what we might mean by thinking skills. Thinking skills, or cognitive skills, are, in large part, things you do with knowledge. Things like analysing, evaluating, synthesising, inferring, conjecturing, justifying, categorising and many other terms describe your cognitive events at a particular functional level.

Analysis, for example, involves identifying the constituent elements of something and examining their relationships with each other and to the whole. One can analyse a painting, a piece of text, a set of data or a graph.

Analysis is a widely valued cognitive skill and is not unique to any discipline context. It is a general thinking skill.

Most syllabuses from primary to tertiary level are organised by content only, with little mention of such cognitive skills. Usually, even if they are mentioned, little is said about how to teach them. The hope is they will be caught, not taught.

Rigour in course design is too often understood as equating to large amounts of recall of content and specific training in algorithms or set procedures. It is far less common, but far more valuable, to have courses in which rigour is found in the demand for high-level cognitive skill formation.

This is not to say that knowledge is not important in the curriculum. Our knowledge is hard won; we should value what we have learned for how it makes our lives more productive or meaningful.

But there is nothing mutually exclusive about developing high levels of cognitive skills with content knowledge in a discipline context. It just demands attention to these skills, using the content as an opportunity to explore them.

It is knowing how to provide students with these skill-building opportunities in context that is the mark of an outstanding teacher of effective thinking.

After all, we do not expect the scientific, cultural and political leaders of tomorrow simply to know stuff. They must also know what to do with it.

Why inquiry is necessary

These skills are not something students can learn just by hearing about them. They need to be given experiences in which they are required to do them. The cognitive skills involve a learning how , not just a learning that .

This is why it’s not possible to develop effective thinkers by relying on didactic teaching methods, in which students are seen as passive recipients of the knowledge passed down by the teacher.

Just as it’s impossible to learn how to surf without getting on a board, it’s impossible to master cognitive skills unless you experience the need to use them.

Inquiry learning provides these necessary experiential opportunities.

There are many ways in which inquiry is understood educationally, and it usually describes a very broad approach characterised by a focus on active student involvement in the learning process.

Let me provide a narrower educational definition: inquiry is a process in which students are required to utilise a range of cognitive skills to formulate and solve problems.

An example of a task that requires only a narrow range of cognitive skills might be one that gets students to apply a learned procedure to construct a piece of art or experimental apparatus. The cognitive skills involved might include recall with some simple application.

If students were asked to evaluate existing examples of the above, with a view to modifying them to suit particular purposes or situations, and to explain their processes in doing so, then the skills of conjecture, analysis, evaluation, justification and communication can come into play.

The second example is more indicative of inquiry learning as a result of its demand for deeper and broader use of cognitive skills.

Let me also add another proviso, particularly to the end of developing good thinkers: to effectively learn to inquire, students must be aware of the cognitive processes they are experiencing. That is, they must be aware of their thinking - they must be metacognitive.

Talking about thinking

To think about our thinking, we must be able to talk about our thinking.

The cognitive skills describe our thought processes and hence provide a language in which we can discuss our thinking, at least in terms of learning to think well. This also provides a language in which to give students feedback on how they are going.

To stick with the example of analysis, we might say that an analysis was quite broad, but did not go deeply enough, or that it analysed some areas in depth, but did not extend to all elements.

Students can use such feedback reflectively and internalise this advice to develop their own autonomous systems of evaluation. Metacognition is therefore a necessary condition for students to improve their thinking.

Moving our educational focus from knowledge to inquiry allows for the development of effective thinking. Inquiry requires students to build strong cognitive skills that extend beyond simple recall or application of learned procedures into genuine critical thinking.

No school could teach students all the knowledge they need to survive in a rapidly evolving society. But we could teach them how to think in a way that works for the knowledge they will learn in the future.

That’s what learning for life really means.

• Critical thinking

Casual Facilitator: GERRIC Student Programs - Arts, Design and Architecture

Senior Lecturer, Digital Advertising

Service Delivery Fleet Coordinator

Manager, Centre Policy and Translation

Newsletter and Deputy Social Media Producer

The Peak Performance Center

The pursuit of performance excellence, thinking skills.

Thinking skills are the mental activities you use to process information, make connections, make decisions, and create new ideas. You use your thinking skills when you try to make sense of experiences, solve problems, make decisions, ask questions, make plans, or organize information.

Everybody has thinking skills, but not everyone uses them effectively. Effective thinking skills are developed over a period of time. Good thinkers see possibilities where others see only obstacles or roadblocks. Good thinkers are able to make connection between various factors and be able to tie them together. They are also able to develop new and unique solutions to problems.

Thinking refers to the process of creating a logical series of connective facets between items of information. Often times, thinking just happens automatically. However, there are times when you consciously think. It may be about how to solve a problem or making a decision. Thinking enables you to connect and integrate new experiences into your existing understanding and perception of how things are.

The simplest thinking skills are learning facts and recall, while higher order skills include analysis, synthesis, problem solving, and evaluation .

Core Thinking Skills

Thinking skills are cognitive operations or processes that are the building blocks of thinking. There are several core thinking skills including focusing, organizing, analyzing, evaluating and generating.

Focusing  – attending to selected pieces of information while ignoring other stimuli.

Remembering  – storing and then retrieving information.  

Gathering  – bringing to the conscious mind the relative information needed for cognitive processing.  

Organizing  – arranging information so it can be used more effectively.

Analyzing  – breaking down information by examining parts and relationships so that its organizational structure may be understood.  

Connecting – making connections between related items or pieces of information.

Integrating  – connecting and combining information to better understand the relationship between the information.

Compiling – putting parts together to form a whole or building a structure or pattern from diverse elements.

Evaluating  – assessing the reasonableness and quality of ideas or materials on order to present and defend opinions.

Generating  – producing new information, ideas, products, or ways of viewing things.

Classifications and Types of Thinking

Convergent or Analytical Thinking: Bringing facts and data together from various sourc es and then applying logic and knowledge to solve problems or to make informed decisions.

Divergent thinking: Breaking a topic apart to explore its various components and then generating new ideas and solutions.

Critical Thinking: Analysis and evaluation of information, beliefs, or knowledge.

Creative Thinking: Generation of new ideas breaking from established thoughts, theories, rules, and procedures.

Metacognition

Thinking about thinking is called Metacognition. It is a higher order thinking that enables understanding, analysis, and control of your cognitive processes. It can involve planning, monitoring, assessing, and evaluating your use of your cognitive skills.

In the simplest form, convergent thinking or deductive reasoning looks inward to find a solution, while divergent or creative thinking looks outward for a solution.

Both thinking skills are essential for school and life.  Both require critical thinking skills to be effective.  Both are used for solving problems, doing projects and achieving objectives.  However, much of the thinking in formal education focuses on the convergent analytical thinking skills such as following or making a logical argument, eliminating the incorrect paths and then figuring out the single correct answer. 

Standardized tests such as IQ tests only measure convergent thinking.  Pattern recognition, logic thought flow, and the ability to solve problems with a single answer can all be tested and graded.  Although it is an extremely valuable skill, there are no accurate tests able to measure divergent or creative thinking skills.

Types of thinking

Critical thinking

Blooms Taxonomy

Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised

Mind Mapping

Chunking Information

Brainstorming

Critical Thinking skills

Divergent and Convergent thinking skills are both “critical thinking” skills. 

Critical thinking refers to the process of actively analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating and reflecting on information gathered from observation, experience, or communication and is focused on deciding what to believe or do. Critical thinking is considered a higher order thinking skills, such as analysis, synthesis, and problem solving, inference, and evaluation. 

The concept of higher order thinking skills became well known with the publication of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives.  Bloom’s Taxonomy was primarily created for academic education; however, it is relevant to all types of learning. 

Often times when people are problem solving or decision making, he or she flips back and forth between convergent and divergent thinking.  When first looking at a problem, people often analyze the facts and circumstances to determine the root cause.  After which, they explore new and innovative options through divergent thinking, then switch back to convergent thinking to limit those down to one practical option.

Author:  James Kelly, September 2011

Copyright © 2024 | WordPress Theme by MH Themes

Online Students

For All Online Programs

International Students

On Campus, need or have Visa

Campus Students

For All Campus Programs

The Importance of Critical Thinking Skills, For Students and Ourselves

Critical thinking is a vital, yet often neglected, skill. In higher education, Chris Griffiths , author of “The Creative Thinking Handbook,” noted in a TLNT blog article that critical thinking is “the ability to think clearly and independently about a subject or problem ... (and the) consideration of multiple perspectives, the checking of biases, and a detailed understanding of relevant context.” Put more simply, it means objective analysis, but we often form judgments without that all-important objective evaluation.

Employers on the Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU) Social Sciences Advisory Board tell us that they need people with critical thinking skills, but applicants often lack this ability. Their desire for critical thinkers is reflected in current research showing that critical thinking is one skill that cannot be taken over by artificial intelligence (AI) and that higher education must take a proactive role in preparing students with this skill.

What Skills Do Critical Thinkers Have?

According to, Dr. Norman Herr , a professor of science education, critical thinking skills can be boiled down to the following key elements:

• Identification of premises and conclusions — Break arguments down into logical statements
• Clarification of arguments — Identify ambiguity in these stated assertions
• Establishment of facts — Search for contradictions to determine if an argument or theory is complete and reasonable
• Evaluation of logic — Use inductive or deductive reasoning to decide if conclusions drawn are adequately supported
• Final evaluation — Weigh the arguments against the evidence presented

When translated to the professional world, the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) identifies critical thinking as a top skill ( NACE PDF Source ). NACE said that students should be ready to demonstrate it by inclusive reasoning and judgement to make decisions and solve problems; analyzing and communicating information from multiple sources with awareness of biases that could impact outcomes; and communicating that information accurately to diverse groups of stakeholders.

As educators, we must teach our students those critical thinking skills and practice them ourselves to objectively analyze an onslaught of information. Ideas, especially plausible-sounding philosophies, should be challenged and put through rigorous credibility tests.

Red Flags for Unreliable Information

The School Library Journal lists four types of information that should raise red flags when we’re watching the news, reading social media, or at any point in our everyday lives when we’re confronted with something purported to be “fact:”

• Fake news , which refers to purported news that is demonstrably untrue.
• Misinformation , which is spread by those who don’t realize that it’s false or only partially true .
• Disinformation , which is deliberately spread by people who know that it’s not accurate and who want to spread a false message.
• Propaganda , which is information that is spread with a specific agenda. It may or may not be false, but it’s intended to get an emotional reaction.

These information types may overlap, especially with the extinction of local news sources. As of 2023, there were only 1,213 daily local newspapers left in the U.S., and they continue to disappear at a rate of two each week, according to a report from The State of Local News Project. The report also notes that there are over 200 counties with no local print, broadcast, or digital news outlets and over 1,500 with only one. This lack of access to local news is overwhelmingly found in high poverty areas, often with predominantly Black, Hispanic or Native-American populations.

This provides opportunities for biased websites to fill the gap; misinformation tracker NewsGuard said that there are almost 1,300 websites positioning themselves as local news while pushing political agendas.

Updated Tools to Support Critical Thinking

SNHU and other colleges and universities across the U.S. must use updated tools to help their students think critically about the information they consume. Currently, many institutions of higher learning fail to teach students how to identify misinformation sources.

AI acts as a cautionary example of the way in which the landscape can transform quickly and dramatically. Generative AI has the ability to converse on any topic and write in the style of anything from an essay to a news article with an air of authority. Griffiths noted that, while it mimics something written via independent thought, it’s regurgitating a mishmash of existing ideas drawn from its training data. It incorporates any biases in that data and even “hallucinates,” providing output as factual when it’s partially or entirely untrue.

Bad actors can leverage AI technology to create written, graphic and audio content that masquerades as real news. One relatively harmless example is the AI-generated photos that supposedly show Katy Perry attending the 2024 Met Gala. Although she was not there, the ruse was so convincing that it even fooled her mother. While the Perry pictures did not cause widespread harm, they show how easily bad actors can convince others of a deepfake’s authenticity. Videos can also be created or manipulated easily to create fake news stories like a supposed Tucker Carlson interview with a Pfizer official about a new FDA-approved diabetes cure. The “story” was actually an ad for an unproven dietary supplement.

As educators in institutions of higher education, we must afford learners as many opportunities as possible to hone their critical thinking skills when interacting with instructors and fellow students.

Greg Lukianoff and Johnathan Haidt, authors of "The Coddling of the American Mind,"  contend that “one of the most brilliant features of universities is that, when they are working properly, they are communities of scholars who cancel out one another’s confirmation biases .”

Without exploring opposing viewpoints, students may fall prey to confirmation bias, further cementing ideas that they already believe to be true. Being inclusive when it comes to viewpoint diversity is indispensable for avoiding these echo chambers that circumvent having one’s ideas challenged.

How to Think Critically

As we teach our students the importance of critical thinking, how do we equip them to sift through the onslaught of information they encounter every day, both personally and in their educational pursuits? And how do we do the same for ourselves?

Here are four critical thinking examples that anyone can apply when evaluating information:

Consider Vested Interest

Consider whether the person who wrote or is sharing the information has any vested interest in doing so. For example, a writer may have a degree and professional experience that gives them expertise to write an article on specific communication techniques.

Be aware that the writer’s credibility can be affected by outside interests. These include being paid to write a book with a certain viewpoint, giving paid seminars, affiliation with certain organizations or anything else that creates a financial or personal interest in promoting a specific perspective.

Examine Biases

Consider the venue in which the person is sharing the information. Newscasts and newspapers once were slanted more toward neutrality, although there was never an era when bias was completely absent. The 19th century even had its own version of clickbait in the form of yellow journalism .

Today, it’s getting more difficult for those with critical thinking skills to find unbiased sources. Use websites like AllSides , which rates major sites on their leanings.

Read Beyond Clickbait Headlines

Websites create headlines to generate traffic and ad revenue, not to support critical thinking or give accurate information. Too many people go by what the headline says without reading more deeply, even though media misrepresentation of studies is rampant.

Often, the information contained within the article is not accurately represented in the headline. Sometimes there’s even a direct contradiction, or the publication is focusing on one single study that may mean nothing because other studies have contradictory results.

Fact-Check Information

Use Snopes , Fact Check , and other fact-checking websites that examines viral memes and news stories for truthfulness. Ironically, Snopes itself has been the victim of misinformation campaigns designed to discredit its efforts to promote the importance of critical thinking.

Why is Critical Thinking so Important?

Misinformation, if not addressed, easily turns into disinformation when it’s readily shared by students, individuals and groups that may know it’s wrong. They may continue to intentionally spread it to cast doubt or stir divisiveness. Students listen to their peers, and the more critical thinking is addressed in a course, the more we prepare students not to fall into the misinformation trap.

Courtney Brown and Sherrish Holland , of the Center for the Professional Education of Teachers, argue that for educators, the challenge is now far more about how they need to inform their students to interpret and assess the information they come across and not simply how to gain access to it. The term “fake news” is used to discredit anyone trying to clarify fact from fiction. Fake news is a cover for some people when they are being deliberately deceptive.

As educators become clearer about the distinction, it can be better communicated to students.

Teaching Students to Think Critically

Anyone in a teaching position should point their students toward reliable references. For example, at SNHU, instructors can send students to databases in the Shapiro Library . For other materials, they should teach them to evaluate their integrity based on the four elements of critical thinking.

Is the premise legitimate or is it clickbait? Are the arguments in the article supported by evidence? Do the facts paint a reasonable picture, or are there contradictions? Is the article based on logic, or is it designed to draw in readers by misrepresenting its content? Is it hosted on a biased site, and do its authors have connections that could cause bias? Does it pass a fact check as a final evaluation?

Instructors can also incorporate these elements into announcements, discussion posts and feedback. For example, they can post two articles with differing viewpoints on the week’s material. For each, they can break down the publication’s possible slant, the way in which any research-based material is presented, and the author’s credentials. This demonstrates the different ways in which similar material can be presented, depending on the source and authors’ affiliations and biases.

Anyone Can Promote Critical Thinking

Even if you don’t teach, use those points in conversations to help others hone their critical thinking skills. If someone shares misinformation with you, don’t be combative. Instead, use probing statements and questions designed to spark their critical thinking.

Here are some examples:

• “That’s very interesting. Do you think the person they’re quoting might be letting his business interests color what he’s saying?”
• “I know that sometimes the media oversimplifies research. I wonder who funded that study and if that’s influencing what they’re saying.”

Of course, you need to adapt to the situation and to make what you say sound organic and conversational, but the core idea remains the same. Inspire the other person to use critical thinking skills. Give them reasons to look more deeply into the topic instead of blindly accepting information.

American cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead said, “Children must be taught how to think, not what to think.” Her sentiment is true for learners of any age, which makes it crucial for educators to maintain sharp critical thinking skills and pass them along to students to support them in their careers and in everyday life.

A degree can change your life. Choose your program  from 200+ SNHU degrees that can take you where you want to go.

Dr. Nickolas Dominello is the senior associate dean on the social sciences team at Southern New Hampshire University. He joined SNHU in 2014, served as a lead psychology faculty member, was promoted to associate dean in 2018 and then to senior associate dean in 2023. Dominello completed his doctoral training at Capella University in 2013, becoming a PhD in Psychology. He also has a Master of Arts in Education at the secondary level, and he has over 20 years of experience working as an educator.

Dr. Barbara Lesniak is the executive director of Social Sciences at Southern New Hampshire University. She started at SNHU as an adjunct in 2012, and her previous roles included associate dean of psychology and senior dean. Her experience outside of academia includes 15 years designing and delivering classroom and web-based courses in the corporate world and providing face-to-face and online counseling services. She specialized in helping online clients in acute crisis situations. Lesniak has a PsyD in Psychology and, as a lifelong learner, she earned an MFA and MS in Marketing at SNHU and is currently working on an MS in Organizational Leadership.

Dr. Tom MacCarty is an associate dean on the social sciences team and oversees the MS in Psychology program at Southern New Hampshire University. He received his PhD in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from Northcentral University. He also holds a Certificate of Advanced Graduate Studies in School Psychology and a Master of Arts Degree in Counseling Psychology from Norwich University. MacCarty can be found on LinkedIn .

Explore more content like this article

Degrees vs. Certificate Programs: What's the Difference?

How Many Credits Do You Need to Graduate College?

How to Teach Online

About southern new hampshire university.

SNHU is a nonprofit, accredited university with a mission to make high-quality education more accessible and affordable for everyone.

Founded in 1932, and online since 1995, we’ve helped countless students reach their goals with flexible, career-focused programs . Our 300-acre campus in Manchester, NH is home to over 3,000 students, and we serve over 135,000 students online. Visit our about SNHU  page to learn more about our mission, accreditations, leadership team, national recognitions and awards.

Importance of Critical Thinking Skills: Definitions and Examples

Nestled within the elaborate tapestry of intellectual acumen, critical thinking emerges as the skilled artisan, deftly weaving a fabric enriched with intricate threads of logic, analysis, and creativity. Embarking on this intellectual odyssey, we delve into the very core of critical thinking skill, peeling back its layers to reveal a multifaceted definition that transcends mere cognition. Picture the masterful weaver, hands moving deftly, intertwining the warp of reason with the weft of creativity, each thread contributing to a narrative of intellectual exploration.

Critical thinking skill, the linchpin of informed decision-making, is an art form. It’s the discerning eye that questions assumptions, the analytical mind that dissects complexities, and the imaginative spirit that births innovative solutions. The loom of critical thinking is adorned with skills—analytical prowess, creative ideation, open-minded inquiry—that collectively form the symphony of cognitive dexterity. Let us traverse the loom’s intricate patterns, exploring real-world examples that illuminate the transformative power of critical thinking. These vignettes serve as windows into a realm where intellect dances with possibility, where the weaver’s hands craft not just understanding but a tapestry of enlightened insight.

Defining the Art of Critical Thinking:

At its core, critical thinking is not a mere mental process; it’s an art form, a dynamic dance between reason and imagination. It’s the ability to evaluate, analyze, and synthesize information with a discerning eye, fostering a mindset that goes beyond surface-level understanding. Critical thinkers are intellectual acrobats, gracefully navigating the vast landscape of ideas, questioning assumptions, and crafting insights that transcend the ordinary.

The Kaleidoscope of Critical Thinking Skills:

Critical thinking skills form the backbone of an agile mind, enabling individuals to navigate the complexities of life with finesse. The kaleidoscope of these skills includes:

1. Analytical Thinking

Like a detective examining clues, analytical thinking involves breaking down complex information into manageable parts, discerning patterns, and extracting meaningful insights.

2. Problem-Solving

Critical thinkers are akin to problem-solving architects, approaching challenges with a systematic methodology that involves defining the problem, generating solutions, and evaluating their effectiveness.

3. Creative Thinking

Beyond logic lies the realm of creativity, where critical thinkers wield the brush of innovation to conceive novel ideas, perspectives, and solutions.

4. Open-Mindedness

Critical thinkers embrace the spectrum of ideas with an open heart and mind, acknowledging diverse viewpoints and cultivating a spirit of intellectual humility.

5. Decision Making

Decisiveness is a hallmark of critical thinking, as individuals weigh evidence, consider alternatives, and make informed choices that align with their goals and values.

6. Communication Skills

Articulation is the brushstroke that brings critical thinking to life. Proficient communicators convey their thoughts, ideas, and analyses effectively, fostering meaningful dialogue.

7. Curiosity

The insatiable appetite for knowledge propels critical thinkers into realms of continuous learning. Curiosity is the compass guiding them through the labyrinth of information.

Critical Thinking in Action: Examples that Illuminate:

1. Literary Analysis

Consider a student dissecting a complex piece of literature. Critical thinking here involves more than summarizing; it delves into interpreting themes, analyzing characters’ motivations, and questioning the author’s narrative choices.

2. Scientific Inquiry

In the scientific realm, critical thinking manifests when researchers design experiments, scrutinize data, and challenge existing theories, paving the way for groundbreaking discoveries.

3. Public Policy Evaluation

Policymakers wielding critical thinking skills assess the impact of proposed policies, considering diverse perspectives, potential consequences, and long-term implications on society.

4. Global Issue Reflection

When faced with global challenges, critical thinkers engage in nuanced reflections. Climate change, for instance, demands an analysis of scientific data, consideration of socio-economic factors, and exploration of sustainable solutions.

5. Business Strategy Formulation

In the corporate arena, critical thinking is the compass for strategic decision-making. Business leaders assess market trends, weigh risks, and devise innovative strategies to ensure organizational success.

6. Historical Interpretation

Historians, armed with critical thinking, scrutinize historical events beyond memorized dates. They analyze primary sources, question biases, and craft narratives that reflect a nuanced understanding of the past.

7. Media Literacy

In the age of information overload, critical thinking empowers individuals to sift through news sources, discerning facts from opinions, recognizing bias, and forming well-informed perspectives.

Cultivating the Garden of Critical Thinking Skills:

Nurturing the seeds of critical thinking requires a holistic approach. Educational institutions, workplaces, and individuals alike play pivotal roles in fostering an environment where these skills can flourish. Strategies may include:

1. Incorporating Critical Thinking into Curricula

Educational systems should weave critical thinking into curricula, designing lessons that encourage questioning, analysis, and creative exploration.

2. Encouraging Diverse Perspectives

Embracing diversity in thought is essential. Workplaces and educational environments should celebrate different viewpoints, fostering an atmosphere where individuals feel empowered to express their ideas.

3. Real-World Application

Practical application solidifies critical thinking skills. Experiential learning, internships, and real-world problem-solving opportunities offer platforms for individuals to hone their abilities.

4. Continuous Learning

Critical thinking is a lifelong journey. Encouraging a mindset of continuous learning through workshops, seminars, and exposure to diverse disciplines ensures a dynamic intellectual landscape.

5. Promoting Reflection

Creating spaces for reflection is crucial. Journaling, discussions, and self-assessment facilitate the internalization of critical thinking skills , transforming them from theoretical concepts to practical habits.

Conclusion: 

Critical thinking skill assumes the role of the conductor, wielding the baton to orchestrate harmonies of insight, innovation, and the cadence of informed decision-making. As we embark on the unraveling journey through the layers of this intellectual tapestry, we don’t just define critical thinking or enumerate its skills; we immerse ourselves in its profound impact, a transformative force shaping not only individuals but resonating through the very fabric of society.

Consider it an art form, a masterpiece where the strokes of analytical prowess, the hues of creative ideation, and the dynamic tempo of open-minded inquiry converge. Critical thinking, in essence, is the beacon that illuminates the path toward a more enlightened and resilient future. It’s a skill to be meticulously honed, an ever-evolving symphony resonating with the possibilities of a more profound understanding of the world and our place within it.

Most Popular Stories

Ongoing Pay Dispute in Scotland’s Further Education Sector Threatens Student Futures

Source - www.bigissue.com Impact on Students’ Education A prolonged pay dispute involving further education (FE) lecturers in Scotland is severely

Virtual Reality Revolutionizes Education: A Glimpse into the Future

Source - www.linkedin.com Transforming Traditional Learning Methods Once synonymous with pens, binders, and chalkboards, the back-to-school season is now embracing

UNESCO’s 2024 International Forum Focuses on Reimagining Education

Source - www.unesco.org A New Vision for Education In November 2021, UNESCO’s International Commission on the Futures of Education unveiled

Exploring the Psychopaths and Sociopaths Difference: Implications for Education

Understanding the psychopaths and sociopaths difference is crucial not just for mental health professionals but also for educators, administrators, and

Innovators Paving the Way in Education, Fitness, and Mental Health

Source - www.linkedin.com Empowering Change through Technology In a global tech landscape, developers are breaking down barriers across gender, race,

Understanding Central Secretariat Services: A Comprehensive Guide for Students

If you’re a student interested in the dynamic world of Indian administrative services, you’ve likely encountered the term "Central Secretariat

Reimagining Education in South-East Europe: The Future Beyond 2030

Source - www.unesco.org Addressing Digital Challenges and Opportunities In South-East Europe Participants from Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia recently

The Transformative Impact of Prodigy Education: Revolutionizing Learning for the Modern Era

In today’s rapidly evolving educational landscape, prodigy education stands out as a pioneering force, reshaping how students learn and educators

Join Our Newsletter!

Get the latest education updates delivered to your inbox.

Future Education Magazine is an exceptional source of knowledge and resources for those looking to choose the right path in education. Whether you are a student, parent, educator, or education enthusiast, our magazine is committed to providing you with insightful and valuable content.

• Higher Education
• Professional Courses
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• [email protected]
• +1 (408) 520-9503
• 3277 S White Rd #41 San Jose, CA 95148, United States

Copyright © 2024: Future Education Magazine | All rights reserved.

Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in Education

Teaching Students to Think Critically

• Applied Behavior Analysis
• Behavior Management
• Lesson Plans
• Math Strategies
• Reading & Writing
• Social Skills
• Inclusion Strategies
• Individual Education Plans
• Becoming A Teacher
• Assessments & Tests
• Elementary Education
• Secondary Education
• Homeschooling

Higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) is a concept popular in American education. It distinguishes critical thinking skills from low-order learning outcomes, such as those attained by rote memorization. HOTS include synthesizing, analyzing, reasoning, comprehending, application, and evaluation.

HOTS is based on various taxonomies of learning, particularly the one created by Benjamin Bloom in his 1956 book, "Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. " Higher-order thinking skills are reflected by the top three levels in Bloom’s Taxonomy: analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

Bloom's Taxonomy and HOTS

Bloom's taxonomy is taught in a majority of teacher-education programs in the United States. As such, it may be among the most well-known educational theories among teachers nationally. As the Curriculum & Leadership Journal notes:

"While Bloom’s Taxonomy is not the only framework for teaching thinking, it is the most widely used, and subsequent frameworks tend to be closely linked to Bloom’s work.... Bloom’s aim was to promote higher forms of thinking in education, such as analyzing and evaluating, rather than just teaching students to remember facts (rote learning)."

Bloom’s taxonomy was designed with six levels to promote HOTS. The six levels were: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. (The taxonomy's levels were later revised as remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, revising, and creating.) The lower-order thinking skills (LOTS) involve memorization, while higher-order thinking requires understanding and applying that knowledge.

The top three levels of Bloom's taxonomy—which is often displayed as a pyramid, with ascending levels of thinking at the top of the structure—are analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. These levels of the taxonomy all involve critical or higher-order thinking. Students who can think are those who can apply the knowledge and skills they have learned to new contexts. Looking at each level demonstrates how HOTS is applied in education.

Analysis , the fourth level of Bloom's pyramid, involves students use their own judgment to begin analyzing the knowledge they have learned. At this point, they begin understanding the underlying structure of knowledge and also are able to distinguish between fact and opinion. Some examples of analysis would be:

• Analyze each statement to decide whether it is fact or opinion.
• Compare and contrast the beliefs of W.E.B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington.
• Apply the rule of 70 to determine how quickly your money will double at 6 percent interest.
• Illustrate the differences between the American alligator and the Nile crocodile.

Synthesis, the fifth level of Bloom’s taxonomy pyramid, requires students to infer relationships among sources , such as essays, articles, works of fiction, lectures by instructors, and even personal observations. For example, a student might infer a relationship between what she has read in a newspaper or article and what she has observed herself. The high-level thinking skill of synthesis is evident when students put the parts or information they have reviewed together to create new meaning or a new structure.

At the synthesis level, students move beyond relying on previously learned information or analyzing items that the teacher is giving to them. Some questions in the educational setting that would involve the synthesis level of HOTS might include:

• What alternative would you suggest for ___?
• What changes would you make to revise___? 
• What could you invent to solve___?

Evaluation , the top level of Bloom's taxonomy, involves students making judgments about the value of ideas, items, and materials. Evaluation is the top level of Bloom’s taxonomy pyramid because at this level, students are expected to mentally assemble all they have learned to make informed and sound evaluations of the material. Some questions involving evaluation might be:

• Evaluate the Bill of Rights and determine which is the least necessary for a free society.
• Attend a local play and write a critique of the actor’s performance.
• Visit an art museum and offer suggestions on ways to improve a specific exhibit.

HOTS in Special Education and Reform

Children with learning disabilities can benefit from educational programming that includes HOTS. Historically, their disabilities engendered lowered expectations from teachers and other professionals and led to more low-order thinking goals enforced by drill and repetition activities. However, children with learning disabilities can develop the HOTS that teach them how to be problem solvers.

Traditional education has favored the acquisition of knowledge, especially among elementary school-age children, over the application of knowledge and critical thinking. Advocates believe that without a basis in fundamental concepts, students cannot learn the HOTS they will need to survive in the work world.

Reform-minded educators, meanwhile, see the acquisition of problem-solving skills—higher-order thinking—to be essential to this very outcome. Reform-minded curricula, such as the Common Core , have been adopted by a number of states, often amid controversy from traditional education advocates. At heart, these curricula emphasize HOTS over strict rote memorization as the means to help students achieve their highest potential.

• The 44 Sounds in the English Language
• Diphthongs: The Sliding Vowels
• Asking Better Questions With Bloom's Taxonomy
• Functional Skills: Skills to Help Special Education Students Gain Independence
• Report Card Comments for English Classes at School
• Mathematics for Special Education: Skills for Primary Grades
• 10 Ways to Keep Your Class Interesting
• Project Based Learning for Special Education and Inclusion
• Multi-Sensory Instruction in Math for Special Education
• The Gold Standard for Special Education Teachers
• 20 Consonant Blends: Spelling and Sounds
• Practice Social Skills With Free Worksheets for Kids
• Text Mapping as a Strategy for Understanding Intent
• Social Skill Resources for Special Education
• How to Brainstorm in the Classroom
• 8 First Day of High School Activities to Get to Know Your Students

The Importance of Critical Thinking for Kids: Why It Matters for Academic and Real-World Success

• September 14, 2023

It may become tiring when your students continuously ask “why?” throughout the school day, but that simple question is one of the first signs of critical thinking for kids.

American philosopher, psychologist, and educator John Dewey referred to this concept as “reflective thinking.” Dewey defined critical thinking as persistent, active, and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge. It requires actively subjecting ideas to review and challenging what you’re told, rather than passively accepting them as truth.

With this thought process being a major part of your students’ brain and cognitive development , it’s important to help nurture it in the classroom with critical thinking activities for kids, so they have the chance to use logic and self-control to solve problems and explore their own creative points of view.

ChildCare Education Institute (CCEI) provides a collection of courses for early childhood educators seeking more guidance and training on how to promote critical thinking in the classroom. We realize that these skills will not only lead to lifelong academic achievement but they also help your students understand how to excel in the real world.

As we consider the importance of critical thinking for kids, we must first denote the foundational skills needed for critical thinking, then consider ways this thinking positively impacts problem-solving and supports academic success. We’ll also share some suggestions for fun projects that connect creativity to nurturing young minds that think critically.

Bloom’s Taxonomy: Levels of Critical Thinking

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a core part of the curricula we use to teach early childhood educators about critical thinking.  It’s also a vital tool teachers use in their day-to-day interactions with children. Bloom’s Taxonomy is laid out as a pyramid, with foundational skills at the bottom and more advanced skills higher up. The lowest phase, “Remember,” doesn’t require a great amount of critical thinking. These signify skills kids use when they memorize things like the alphabet, math facts, sight words, etc. Critical thinking starts to take off in the next steps of the pyramid

Understand – Understanding goes beyond memorization. It’s the difference between a child repeating the rote concept of “2+2 is four” or learning the days of the week versus understanding that when you add 2+2 it’s the same as multiplying those same numbers. Or a child understanding Saturday is the day after Friday and so on. Pure memorization has its place. Still, when a student understands the concept behind something, they’re able to apply what they’ve learned.

Apply – Application widens the world of knowledge and reasoning for young minds. Once they recognize the concept they’ve mastered can apply to other examples, you’ve helped them expand their learning greatly.  Math and science are where this level of critical thinking can easily be recognized, but its present in all subjects. Take sight words, for instance. Students originally memorize these words to help them read. However, once kids learn the phonics of words, they can apply that to tackle new words.

Analyze – Analysis springs your students into the next phase. Analyzing is where that incessant question of why stems because at this point they’re no longer taking things at face value. Analysis leads to students finding their own facts that stand up to inquiry, even when the facts don’t support what they thought. In the instance of your student beginning to question their belief that babies come from storks. Analyzing requires exploring, asking you questions, comparing and contrasting, research, and several other concepts to find the facts. Though they previously let their favorite fairy tales guide them, they now have to determine the best primary sources for information about babies’ birth like their teachers, parents, videos, and reading. Adults who find success in life have to use this skill set daily, and critical thinking for kids at this phase also becomes a routine.

Evaluate – Nearing the top of Bloom’s pyramid is evaluation skills, which provide the opportunity for kids to synthesize all the information they’ve learned, understood, applied, and analyzed, and to use it to support their opinions and decisions. The student has taken in all the information about babies, so now they have to remove their bias to make a choice on whether babies come from their mom or a stork. Evaluation moves beyond their beliefs that were supported without the proper elements of critical thinking.

Create – In the final phase, students use every one of those previous skills to create something new. For example, many kids in this age range create and express themselves through art. By starting with understanding and progressing to evaluating, they uncover how to apply the knowledge of how to mix primary colors (blue, red, etc.) to make other hues like purple, brown, etc. Beyond that, they can take their paints and easel to make a portrait that highlights the mixture of colors.

Why critical thinking for kids matters

Students making their way through each level of Bloom’s Taxonomy will think independently and understand concepts thoroughly. Students who know how to analyze and critique ideas are able to connect those skills to several subject matters  to make connections in various disciplines, see knowledge as useful and apply that and comprehend content on a deeper, more lasting level, according to the book “Critical Thinking Development: A Stage Theory.”  With that deeper understanding, your students will not always rely on you and their class time for guidance. Instead, they will seek out information and become self-directed learners in their daily lives.

At such a young age, it may seem difficult to promote critical thinking in the classroom, since it’s more of a habit that falls onto the individual student. However, early childhood educators are best suited to introduce critical thinking to little learners. In a 2018 Reboot Foundation survey, 20 percent of respondents said that critical thinking skills are best developed in early childhood, children ages 5 and younger.

At all ages, there’s an undeniable impact from providing lessons that nurture critical thinking in kids. For academic purposes, your students will be more ready to problem-solve and evaluate the lessons they learn in class. For their own benefit, forming their personal opinions based on deep critical thinking will allow them to find their own interests. When students are truly passionate about a topic or pursuit, they are more engaged and willing to experiment. The process of expanding their knowledge brings about a lot of opportunities for critical thinking. You have the chance to encourage this action and witness the benefits of the child investing in their niche interest in insects, performing arts, space, and more.

How to make critical thinking for kids fun

Critical thinking is all about sparking and responding to curiosity. There are a number of critical thinking activities for kids that have been proven helpful for early childhood educators.

Below, you’ll find a few fun ideas for your classroom:

Journal Time

Journaling may seem like a simple task but offers a daily or weekly opportunity to get your students in an imaginative mindset. You can incorporate just five minutes of instruction time each day to ask kids an open-ended question they can respond to using written words, a drawing, etc. For example, “What did you like about the experiment we did today?” or “What’s your favorite day of the week, and why?”

The kids may use words and pictures, depending on their level of writing skills, to answer the questions.

Lego-theme Party

You’ll be hard-pressed to find a student that won’t quickly say yes to a Lego party. This party is an opportunity for each student to use their imagination to create their own scene or theme based on one-word prompts. Just ask your students to create a farm, a store, the school, etc. using Legos.

The Lego creations allow them to use their imagination to create various themes, but they may have questions about what to include. You can give them helpful hints (like mentioning animals on a farm), but make sure your students are responsible for the final outcome. After everyone’s done, you can see how each student applied their critical thinking with very little guidance.

Make Your Own Menu

This food-themed critical thinking activity is sure to be a treat.

Gather artificial food items and sit them in front of the class. For this activity, ask each student to pick which foods they want for their personal menu. The students might ask how to spell the names of items or ingredients, but they’ll be fully in charge of what concoctions they create.

At the end, each student can present their menu and explain why they chose their food items. Not only will the students have a better handle on critical thinking, but they’ll also learn their classmates’ favorite foods.

These critical thinking activities for kids give your students the opportunity to question, analyze and evaluate in creative ways on topics that relate to them. Though critical thinking is a nuanced lesson, CCEI has designed courses that can help teachers inspire and guide students toward long-term academic success, such as Critical Thinking Skills in the Preschool Environment .

Click here to learn more about how to promote critical thinking in the classroom and discover our entire catalog of more than 200+ online courses that cover an array of trainings.

ChildCare Education Institute (CCEI) is the industry leader for online professional development . 

Professional Development Courses

Certificate Programs

Staff Training

Head Start Training

Director Training

Custom Course Hosting

CCEI Company

Trial Course

Trending Topics

StraighterLine Company

Terms of Use  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Code of Conduct  |  Student Handbook English | Student Handbook Spanish © 2024 ChildCare Education Institute 1155 Perimeter Center West, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 1.800.499.9907

The Importance of Critical Thinking Skills for Students

Link Copied

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Brains at Work!

If you’re moving toward the end of your high school career, you’ve likely heard a lot about college life and how different it is from high school. Classes are more intense, professors are stricter, and the curriculum is more complicated. All in all, it’s very different compared to high school.

Different doesn’t have to mean scary, though. If you’re nervous about beginning college and you’re worried about how you’ll learn in a place so different from high school, there are steps you can take to help you thrive in your college career.

If you’re wondering how to get accepted into college and how to succeed as a freshman in such a new environment, the answer is simple: harness the power of critical thinking skills for students.

What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking entails using reasoning and the questioning of assumptions to address problems, assess information, identify biases, and more. It's a skillset crucial for students navigating their academic journey and beyond, including how to get accepted into college . At its crux, critical thinking for students has everything to do with self-discipline and making active decisions to 'think outside the box,' allowing individuals to think beyond a concept alone in order to understand it better.

Critical thinking skills for students is a concept highly encouraged in any and every educational setting, and with good reason. Possessing strong critical thinking skills will make you a better student and, frankly, help you gain valuable life skills. Not only will you be more efficient in gathering knowledge and processing information, but you will also enhance your ability to analyse and comprehend it.

Importance of critical thinking for students

Developing critical thinking skills for students is essential for success at all academic levels, particularly in college. It introduces reflection and perspective while encouraging you to question what you’re learning! Even if you’ve seen solid facts. Asking questions, considering other perspectives, and self-reflection cultivate resilient students with endless potential for learning, retention, and personal growth.A well-developed set of critical thinking skills for students will help them excel in many areas. Here are some critical thinking examples for students:

1. Decision-making

If you’re thinking critically, you’re not making impulse decisions or snap judgments; you’re taking the time to weigh the pros and cons. You’re making informed decisions. Critical thinking skills for students can make all the difference.

2. Problem-solving

Students with critical thinking skills are more effective in problem-solving. This reflective thinking process helps you use your own experiences to ideate innovations, solutions, and decisions.

3. Communication

Strong communication skills are a vital aspect of critical thinking for students, helping with their overall critical thinking abilities. How can you learn without asking questions? Critical thinking for students is what helps them produce the questions they may not have ever thought to ask. As a critical thinker, you’ll get better at expressing your ideas concisely and logically, facilitating thoughtful discussion, and learning from your teachers and peers.

4. Analytical skills

Developing analytical skills is a key component of strong critical thinking skills for students. It goes beyond study tips on reviewing data or learning a concept. It’s about the “Who? What? Where? Why? When? How?” When you’re thinking critically, these questions will come naturally, and you’ll be an expert learner because of it.

How can students develop critical thinking skills

Although critical thinking skills for students is an important and necessary process, it isn’t necessarily difficult to develop these observational skills. All it takes is a conscious effort and a little bit of practice. Here are a few tips to get you started:

1. Never stop asking questions

This is the best way to learn critical thinking skills for students. As stated earlier, ask questions—even if you’re presented with facts to begin with. When you’re examining a problem or learning a concept, ask as many questions as you can. Not only will you be better acquainted with what you’re learning, but it’ll soon become second nature to follow this process in every class you take and help you improve your GPA .

2. Practice active listening

As important as asking questions is, it is equally vital to be a good listener to your peers. It is astounding how much we can learn from each other in a collaborative environment! Diverse perspectives are key to fostering critical thinking skills for students. Keep an open mind and view every discussion as an opportunity to learn.

3. Dive into your creativity

Although a college environment is vastly different from high school classrooms, one thing remains constant through all levels of education: the importance of creativity. Creativity is a guiding factor through all facets of critical thinking skills for students. It fosters collaborative discussion, innovative solutions, and thoughtful analyses.

4. Engage in debates and discussions

Participating in debates and discussions helps you articulate your thoughts clearly and consider opposing viewpoints. It challenges the critical thinking skills of students about the evidence presented, decoding arguments, and constructing logical reasoning. Look for debates and discussion opportunities in class, online forums, or extracurricular activities.

5. Look out for diverse sources of information 

In today's digital age, information is easily available from a variety of sources. Make it a habit to explore different opinions, perspectives, and sources of information. This not only broadens one's understanding of a subject but also helps in distinguishing between reliable and biased sources, honing the critical thinking skills of students.

Unlock the power of critical thinking skills while enjoying a seamless student living experience!

Book through amber today!

6. Practice problem-solving

Try engaging in challenging problems, riddles or puzzles that require critical thinking skills for students to solve. Whether it's solving mathematical equations, tackling complex scenarios in literature, or analysing data in science experiments, regular practice of problem-solving tasks sharpens your analytical skills. It enhances your ability to think critically under pressure.

Nurturing critical thinking skills helps students with the tools to navigate the complexities of academia and beyond. By learning active listening, curiosity, creativity, and problem-solving, students can create a sturdy foundation for lifelong learning. By building upon all these skills, you’ll be an expert critical thinker in no time—and you’ll be ready to conquer all that college has to offer! 

Frequently Asked Questions

What questions should i ask to be a better critical thinker, how can i sharpen critical thinking skills for students, how do i avoid bias, can i use my critical thinking skills outside of school, will critical thinking skills help students in their future careers.

Your ideal student home & a flight ticket awaits

Follow us on :

Related Posts

15 Best Spring Break Destinations in the U.S.

How to Thrift Shop: 5 Essential Thrifting Tips

The Difference Between GI And Gen-Z: The Entire Timeline

amber © 2024. All rights reserved.

4.8/5 on Trustpilot

Rated as "Excellent" • 4800+ Reviews by students

Rated as "Excellent" • 4800+ Reviews by Students

No products in the cart.

Higher order thinking skills for students and teachers.

What Is Higher Order Thinking?

In days gone by, rote learning was where it was at.

Latin ? Learn your grammar off by heart.

Mathematics ? Learn your times tables until the answer to 12 times 9 is nothing more than a reflex-like that reflex-thing when the doctor hits your knee with a tiny hammer.

Now, there’s no doubt about it, rote learning has its place. If you want to commit important dates to memory, then rote learning is one truly effective method.

But, what if you want to do more than commit facts and figures to memory? What if the question isn’t when the First World War started, but, instead, why did the First World War start?

Questions like these require us to think differently than those questions that can be answered by simply regurgitating information we have committed to memory.

When questions demand of us that we engage creatively, respond innovatively or evaluate, then we need to engage in higher-order thinking.

When we talk about higher-order thinking, we refer to thinking skills that go beyond merely memorising facts and figures. This type of thinking demands more cognitive processing capabilities than other types of thinking.

Why Are Higher Order Thinking Skills Important for Students?

Higher-order thinking skills are much more difficult to teach than lower-order skills, but they are all the more important.

Aside from the fact that questions that make demands of students’ higher-order thinking skills are weighted more heavily in exams, there are several reasons why students need to learn and practice them in the classroom.

Higher-order-thinking skills:

• Enables a greater appreciation of art and literature, enriching our enjoyment and experience of life
• Promotes essential skills such as critical thinking and problem-solving
• Are highly in demand by employers and projected to be increasingly in demand in the future
• Involves transferable skills that can be essential in a wide variety of contexts.

How Do I Teach Higher Order Thinking In My Classroom?

As we’ve mentioned, higher-order thinking makes greater cognitive processing demands, and this type of thinking can be, unsurprisingly, more difficult to learn and teach.

In the strategies below, you’ll find a mix of concepts and activities that can be combined and adapted to help encourage higher-order thinking in your classroom.

The Relevance of Bloom’s Taxonomy

One of the keys here lies in asking questions that require students to engage in higher-order thinking to answer them.

The types of questions that demand higher-order thinking of our students can helpfully be illustrated concerning Bloom’s taxonomy.

In this well-known classification system and hierarchical organization of thinking types, the lower-order thinking types, such as Remember, Understand and Apply, require less cognitive processing than the higher-order types, such as Analyze, Evaluate, and Create.

Bloom’s taxonomy classifies learning objectives by complexity and is a helpful means to identify higher-order questions.

According to Bloom, there are six learning objectives: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create.

The first three are considered to employ lower-level thinking, while the last three are classified as higher-order thinking.

If we are composing questions for our students that challenge students at levels 4, 5, and 6 (analyze, evaluate, create), then our students will need to engage in higher-order thinking to answer.

Now, let’s look at how we can use each of the three higher levels in Bloom’s taxonomy to generate questions that will encourage higher-order thinking in our students.

Higher-order Thinking Questions 

We’ll look at each of the 3 higher-order levels in turn.

First, we’ll briefly define each of the terms. Then, we’ll list some of the keywords that can be used to form instructions for a higher order thinking task. And, finally, we’ll offer some useful question starters, or prompts, to encourage higher order thinking at this level.

1. Analyze – Exploring connections and relationships by breaking things into parts

Keywords: Analyze, Categorize, Classify, Compare, Contrast, Discover, Divide, Examine, Group, Inspect, Sequence, Simplify.

Question Starters:

• Why did x happen?
• What is the relationship between x and y ?
• What were the advantages of x ?
• What were the disadvantages of x ?
• What was the turning point?
• What were the causes of x ?
• What were the effects of x ?

2. Evaluate – Defending or justifying our opinions and beliefs

Keywords: Assess, Choose, Determine, Evaluate, Justify, Compare, Rate, Recommend, Select, Agree, Appraise, Prioritize, Support, Prove, Disprove.

• Why was it important that…?
• Do you think x was a good thing?
• Do you agree/disagree that…?
• What was the writer’s viewpoint on x ?
• What is your opinion on x ?
• What is the best solution to the problem of x ?

3. Create – Generating new ideas and alternatives

Keywords: Change, Construct, Design, Develop, Imagine, Improve, Invent, Formulate, Plan, Produce, Predict, Propose, Modify, Solve.

• How would you improve x ?
• What changes would you make to x ?
• How do you think x would feel?
• What outcome do you predict?
• Can you think of another suitable title for x ?
• How would you end this?

The Socratic Method

This classic teaching technique’s origins stretch back to the wily, old ancient Greek himself. Socrates’ strategy for higher-order thinking and critical inquiry involved a process of thoughtful questioning and discussion. This practice effectively engages the student’s analytical and critical faculties.

The Socratic questioning process demands that, rather than the teacher feeding the student information directly, they should employ a series of questions that develops the student’s understanding and their awareness of the limits of their own knowledge.

The questions asked should be open-ended in nature. This is because their purpose is to facilitate collaborative dialogues and discussions intended to enhance learning through reasoning and analysis. This is not meant to be a competition of ideas, but an exploration focused on arriving at the most rational understanding of the ideas and content as possible.

Two particularly useful strategies that encourage the Socratic method in the classroom are Socratic Circles and Socratic Seminars .

Let’s take a look at each of these in turn:

Socratic Circles

A highly effective means of promoting collaborative learning, Socractic circles encourage students to explore and analyze different perspectives and interpretations on a given topic.

Here’s how this strategy works in practice:

1. First, group students in two concentric circles. There should be an inner circle and an outer circle.

2. Then, instruct the students of the inner circle to read, analyze, and discuss the assigned reading material. A time frame should be set for this task e.g. 10 minutes.

3. As the inner circle engages in their discussion of the material, the outer circle is tasked to stay silent and observe the inner circle’s dialogues.

4. When the allotted time is up, the outer circle is given 10 minutes (or other suitable amount of time) to evaluate the inner circle’s discussions, giving feedback and comments as the inner circle listens.

5. When the feedback session has been completed, the inner and outer circles now switch positions and the exercise is repeated with the groups’ roles reversed.

Socratic Seminars

In a Socratic seminar, the teacher facilitates a group discussion focused around a specific learning goal.

Questions should be designed to help students evaluate their own opinions on the subject and should be aimed at stimulating a deeper understanding of the material.

To ensure fair participation, teachers should establish clear guidelines for the group interaction. This will help keep discussions on track and avoid straying off task or the degeneration of the discussion into personal attacks, or other irrational exchanges.

To help ensure the optimal interactions, teachers should try to demonstrate good models of thinking and interaction at all times.

The Socratic seminar will provide students with opportunities to critically analyze and explore their underlying assumptions and beliefs and then go beyond them.

Conceptual Thinking

Encouraging students to think conceptually is to encourage them to make links between different aspects of their learning.

Rather than seeing and learning various ‘facts’ in isolation, thinking in terms of concepts gets students to organize their thinking by the clustering of ideas around a singular, central idea.

For example, we can categorize boxing, gymnastics, soccer, tennis, cycling, and basketball simply as sports.

We can also further enhance our understanding of these sports by recognizing that while boxing, tennis, cycling, and gymnastics are individual sports, soccer and basketball are team sports.

By organizing our thinking in such a manner, we create a mental representation of things that belong together and things that don’t. We see commonalities and differences where none are immediately apparent.

Encourage conceptual thinking in the classroom by asking students to identify similarities and differences between things. You can usefully record their suggestions using line diagrams to display various connections between things. This encourages a more nuanced approach to categorization and can be applied across wide areas of knowledge.

When we want students to infer something from limited evidence, we’ll routinely ask them to ‘read between the lines.’

Giving our students opportunities to practice inference in the classroom is important as we are not always fortunate enough to have all the evidence to hand before we make a judgment.

Setting our students tasks that ask them to infer something encourages them to engage in close reading of the content, and to engage and evaluate that content at a deeper level than a cursory read would allow.

Creative Thinking

Creativity relates to originality and flexibility of thinking. It is a difficult skill to master and it’s no surprise that it is represented as the highest level of thinking in Bloom’s taxonomy, where it is sometimes termed ‘synthesis’.

Not only is creativity one of the most difficult skills to master, it’s one of the most difficult things to teach too.

But, there are some things you can do to encourage your students to think creatively in the classroom. Primary among these things is creating a classroom culture that celebrates originality and an environment that encourages experimentation.

At its essence, creativity is a form of divergent thinking that is impossible without some willingness to stray from the more well-worn and inviting paths of thought. It is necessary then to ensure that this type of thinking is rewarded in your classroom.

How Can I Encourage a Classroom Culture of Higher Order Thinking?

Now you have a good understanding of various higher order thinking methodologies and strategies, you may be wondering how do you actually encourage higher order thinking in the classroom on a daily basis.

The best way to make higher order thinking a habit in the classroom is to display it yourself at every opportunity.

There are a number of ways you can do this. For example,

●     Do your thinking out loud – Many of us, as teachers, employ various types of higher order thinking instinctively in the classroom without even realising it. We take for granted the importance of analyzing and evaluating information to the point we’ve automatized the processes involved.

For many of our students, however, thinking deeply about new information is a skill they are still developing. By doing our thinking out loud, when faced with a problem or some new information to process, we model our methods of deep thinking for our students. This provides them with a roadmap for independently employing their own critical thinking faculties in future.

●     Expand on the curriculum – Despite many positive developments in the world of education, lots of our curriculum-based learning remains knowledge-based. While lots of this knowledge is undoubtedly useful, it can often lead to a reliance on closed questioning, where specific answers are the explicit aim of any questioning. To give scope to higher order thinking by your students, be sure to incorporate open-ended questions into your lessons. Work to create opportunities throughout your lessons for students to discuss their own ideas and why they think the way that they do.

●     Make higher order thinking a habit – As you demonstrate higher order thinking in your own thought process to the students, and create opportunities for the students themselves to engage in higher order thinking, you will be working towards making this approach a habit among your students. This will take time and need constant reinforcement and encouragement. Classroom displays and question prompt cards are two effective ways to keep higher order thinking to the fore in your classroom.

How Do I Assess the Development of Higher Order Thinking In My Students?

As with most classroom assessments, you’ll assess your students against the learning objectives you have set for them. In the case of higher order thinking, composing student learning objectives using language such as that outlined above in reference to Bloom’s taxonomy can make assessment all the easier, if applied from the outset.

It’s also helpful here to distinguish between the two main types of assessment: formative assessment and summative assessment.

Formative assessment (or ongoing assessment) is largely used to inform planning. Assessing higher order thinking on an ongoing basis can be effectively achieved through oral questioning in class using the keywords and question prompts discussed earlier in this article. This can also be done as written tasks. The students’ responses to this type of questioning can provide useful data to help you understand where to go next with your planning and your teaching.

Summative assessment (or end of topic, term, year etc assessment) can be a little trickier when it comes to assessing higher order thinking skills development. Unlike more knowledge-based areas of teaching and learning, you aren’t trying to get a snapshot of facts retained here. While something like a multiple-choice exam may work well for assessing that type of learning, project-based assessment may be more suited to assessing higher order thinking in the classroom.

For example, you might ask your students to demonstrate their learning, or take what they’ve learned and create a new product. Essentially, you are looking to create an assessment opportunity that allows you to evaluate the students’ abilities to synthesize and create utilizing their new understanding.

Higher-order thinking involves students moving beyond simply recalling facts and repeating back exactly what they have learned.

It focuses more on how we think, rather on what we think. It requires the student to ‘do’ something with what they’ve learned, rather than simply retain it and repeat it when necessary, such as we might do in an exam. This ‘do’ can helpfully be encapsulated in the form of verbs such as create, evaluate, design, analyze etc.

Higher order thinking is a skill. And, just like any other skill, it can be taught and improved upon through practice.

To ensure our students get the opportunity to acquire and hone their higher order thinking skills, we must create opportunities in the classroom.

We must encourage a spirit of inquiry in our classrooms, as well as establish a classroom culture that encourages that spirit of inquiry in such a way that it becomes a habit. The exercises and strategies above will go some way to getting that process started.

Ten Great Questions to Encourage Higher-Order Thinking Skills

Certainly! Higher-order thinking questions are designed to engage students in critical thinking, analysis, and synthesis. Here are ten examples across different subjects:

• Literature:
• “How does the author’s use of symbolism contribute to the overall theme of the novel?”
• “If you were the main character, how might you have approached the conflict differently?”
• “Explain the real-world applications of the scientific principles we learned in this chapter.”
• “If you were designing this experiment, what variables would you change to test different hypotheses?”
• Mathematics:
• “Why is the formula used in this problem applicable, and how does it relate to the concept we discussed?”
• “Can you find an alternative method to solve this problem, and compare the advantages and disadvantages of each approach?”
• “Analyze the long-term impact of this historical event on society. How might things be different if it had unfolded differently?”
• “Compare and contrast the perspectives of different groups of people during this period in history.”
• Social Studies:
• “Evaluate the potential consequences of a specific government policy on different segments of the population.”
• “How do cultural differences contribute to the global dynamics of a particular region?”
• Critical Thinking:
• “What evidence supports your argument, and how might someone with a different perspective respond to your points?”
• “In what ways does your personal experience align or diverge from the information presented in the text?”
• “Discuss the ethical implications of a controversial decision made by a historical figure or character in a story.”
• “If faced with a similar moral dilemma, what factors would you consider in making your decision?”

These questions encourage students to think beyond basic recall and delve into more profound understanding, analysis, and application of knowledge.

5 higher order thinking skills activities

• Organize a discussion where students explore complex questions or issues related to a text, topic, or current event.
• Encourage students to formulate open-ended questions, analyze evidence, and construct arguments based on critical reasoning and evidence.
• Facilitate dialogue by asking probing questions to deepen understanding and challenge assumptions.
• Assign students a real-world problem or challenge and task them with designing and implementing a solution.
• Encourage interdisciplinary collaboration, research, and creative problem-solving.
• Provide opportunities for students to present their findings and reflect on the process, promoting metacognitive awareness.
• Divide students into teams and assign them positions on a controversial topic or issue.
• Require teams to research and construct arguments supported by evidence, logic, and reasoning.
• Facilitate structured debates where students engage in respectful discourse, defend their positions, and rebut opposing arguments.
• Present students with real or hypothetical scenarios that require analysis and decision-making.
• Encourage students to apply conceptual knowledge to analyze the situation, identify key issues, and propose solutions.
• Foster discussion and debate among students to explore different perspectives and ethical considerations.
• Present students with open-ended problems or challenges that require innovative solutions.
• Encourage divergent thinking by brainstorming multiple possible solutions without judgment.
• Guide students through the process of evaluating potential solutions, considering feasibility, effectiveness, and ethical implications.

These activities engage students in higher-order thinking skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, and metacognition, preparing them to navigate complex challenges and succeed in the 21st-century world.

The importance of hOTS in classroom instruction

Cultivating higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) holds profound significance in education. As educators, we are entrusted with imparting knowledge and nurturing critical thinking, problem-solving abilities, creativity, and metacognition among our students. This 500-word exploration underscores the paramount importance of integrating HOTS into classroom instruction and its profound impact on student learning and development.

First and foremost, embracing HOTS in our teaching practices empowers students to transcend the boundaries of rote memorization and passive learning. By engaging them in activities that require analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of information, we instill in them a deeper understanding of concepts and foster an appreciation for learning as an active, dynamic process.

Moreover, by placing emphasis on HOTS, we foster a sense of agency and ownership among our students. Encouraging them to think critically and engage with content at a deeper level enhances their motivation and engagement and equips them with the skills necessary to become autonomous, self-directed learners who can confidently navigate complex challenges.

Furthermore, integrating HOTS into classroom instruction prepares students for success beyond the confines of academia. In an ever-evolving world where adaptability and innovation are prized, the ability to think critically, solve problems creatively, and communicate effectively is paramount. By honing these skills in the classroom, we equip our students with the tools they need to thrive in the workforce and make meaningful contributions to society.

Additionally, HOTS foster creativity and innovation among students, which are increasingly valued in today’s world. By encouraging students to explore new ideas, express themselves creatively, and think outside the box, we stimulate their imagination and cultivate a spirit of innovation essential for success in any field.

Moreover, integrating HOTS into classroom instruction promotes metacognition among students, enabling them to better understand their own learning processes. By reflecting on their thinking, setting goals, and monitoring their progress, students become more adept at identifying their strengths and weaknesses as learners and developing strategies to improve their performance.

Furthermore, HOTS encourage collaboration and communication among students, skills that are essential for success in the 21st-century workforce. By engaging students in collaborative learning experiences that require them to work together to solve problems or achieve common goals, we foster teamwork, leadership, and effective communication skills that are invaluable in today’s interconnected world.

In conclusion, as educators, we must prioritize the development of higher-order thinking skills in our teaching practices. By fostering critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, and metacognition among our students, we prepare them for success in an increasingly complex and dynamic world. Let us commit ourselves to creating learning environments that nurture these skills, empowering our students to become lifelong learners who can thrive in any endeavor they pursue.

Similar Posts

classic Battleship Printable game for students

Battleship Printable Game for Students Battleship is a classic game of strategy and logic that kids of all ages love to…

101 Excellent Educational Quotes for teachers and students

Sometimes, as a teacher, you need something brilliant to say to inspire and motivate yourself and those around you.   And, if…

An excellent collection of Fermi problems for your class

Enrico Fermi is the father of “solving maths problems we will never know the exact answer to.” Such as how many…

FREE PRINTABLE GRAPH AND GRID PAPER OF ALL SIZES

It can be hard to find a simple graph or grid paper when you need it in the classroom or if…

Growth Mindset activities for teachers and students

Growth Mindset – What is it, and Why is it important? As educators, we are constantly advocating for the idea of…

Five reasons why computational thinking is an essential tool for teachers and students.

Numerous countries and regions undertaking curriculum redesign within recent years have embraced computational thinking as an essential mindset for students and…

Rahul Education

• 1800 210 1002
• [email protected]
• Alumni Association
• Get Scholarship
• get in touch
• Parents login

THE IMPORTANCE OF CRITICAL THINKING IN EDUCATION

Being a student in 2021 is quite different from being one is 2011. In a span of 10 years, the world of education has witnessed a sea change. As the world keeps facing new challenges, especially due to COVID-19, younger generations, and the education system they are a part of, has also become dynamic. However, there are certain foundations to any education system that has stood the test of time. One key element that has always been stressed upon and practiced by educators in the liberal education spectrum is imparting Critical Thinking skills.

Enhancing a student’s critical thinking skills is particularly essential in a liberal education model, which believes in teaching students how to think and not what to think.

Here are some of the reasons why students need critical thinking skills in today’s age-

Enhancing creativity and curiosity:

A student who is encouraged to be a critical thinker invariably develops a sense of curiosity of happenings around him/her. A strong and genuine sense of curiosity leads to students wanting to analyse and assimilate information and events. In the process, they form their own informed ideas, mostly out-of-the-box ones, that in turn improves their creativity. Creativity is a skill that all critical thinkers will dally with in their professional and personal life. In the process of finding answers in a logical and rational manner, they will usually be able to get their creative juices flowing.

Promoting self-assertion and self-reflection:

Critical thinking is essentially self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. When one thinks critically, it is done is a self-directed manner. There is an internalization of the issue at hand and a deep understanding of it in an objective fashion. Critical thinking is at the forefront of learning, as it aids a student reflect and understand their points of views. This skill helps a student figure out how to make sense of the world, based on personal observation and understanding. It makes learners self-assertive and confident as they know that the outcome is the result of a thought process that yields results. Students also gain confidence and the ability to learn from mistakes both of which are crucial in their personal and professional lives.

Boosting career prospects:

Critical thinking is not confined to the classroom. In the aftermath of COVID-19, the new economy places a lot of demand on a flexible workforce and employee’s ability to analyse information from various sources and come up with ingenuous solutions towards the same. An employee with strong critical thinking skills will be valued in a fast-changing workplace.

Nurturing problem-solvers and innovators:

One of the by-products of critical thinking skills is the ability to analyse and look at problems in a creative and constructive method. Critical thinkers are invariably good problem solvers. A good critical thinker will be able to separate facts from opinions and fiction and examine the issue from all angles before making rational decisions towards solving a problem. They will also be able to produce bias free solutions to problems, a fact that is crucial to note in the employment arena. As universal challenges like global warming, pollution, pandemics, continue to plague the world, youngsters of today – who will become the leaders of tomorrow – will be expected to take the mantle of finding effective solutions. Critical thinkers will engineer creative and lasting solutions.

Fostering allied life skills:

Critical thinking fosters allied life skills such as organisational skills, planning, open-mindedness, communication skills among others. Being a life skill by itself, critical thinking enables you to take on challenges in the personal and professional world with ease. It encourages confidence and independence, thereby shaping successful lives. As a critical thinker, one will learn from their mistakes, thereby notching up their productivity in all spheres of life.

As education takes different forms in a world hit by a pandemic, it is extremely crucial for students to possess skills like critical thinking, that will prepare them for tomorrow. After all, children of today are the leaders of tomorrow. Thinking critically boost creativity and enhance the way we use and manage our time and critical thinking not only describes the ability to think in accordance with the rules of logic and probability, but also the ability to apply these skills to real-life problems, which are not content-independent. . Critical thinking can provide you with a more insightful understanding of yourself. It will offer you an opportunity to be objective, less emotional, and more open-minded as you appreciate others’ views and opinions. By thinking ahead, you will gain the confidence to present fresh perspectives and new insights into burden some concerns.

Critical thinking occurs when students are analyzing, evaluating, interpreting, or synthesizing information and applying creative thought to form an argument, solve a problem, or reach a conclusion. The aim of Critical Thinking is to promote independent thinking, personal autonomy and reasoned judgment in thought and action. This involves two related dimensions:

• The ability to reason well and
• The disposition to do so.

Critical thinking involves logic as well as creativity. It may involve inductive and deductive reasoning, analysis and problem-solving as well as creative, innovative and complex approaches to the resolution of issues and challenges. One of the significant aims of education is to produce learners who are well informed, that is to say, learners should understand ideas that are important, useful, beautiful and powerful. Another is to create learners who have the appetite to think analytically and critically, to use what they know to enhance their own lives and also to contribute to their society, culture and civilization. Every pupil should have an effective skill of critical thinking, and they must not accept anything for granted It’s the ability of the child to think about anything and everything. An ability of critical thinking

Critical thinking should be encouraged. Traditional concepts of learning are loosing its charm. Text based passive learning is giving way to active thinking and learning process. The vital goal of education is to promote critical thinking in students, not making them reflect like a parrot. EYFS and KHDA are new terms that aim at improving the quality in education.

It’s really important to instil the ability of critical thinking in children through education. Early Years Foundation Stage is providing better guidance for children at a very tender age, they believe in individual abilities of children. There are Government bodies such as the KHDA in Dubai who takes the responsibility of the growth and quality of private education institutions.

As far as 21st century learning is concerned, critical thinking is an important factor. Spoon-feeding system in education has changed for better. It’s an era of better education.

Dr. Mamta Singh

B.A | B.Ed | M.A | Persuing M.Ed School Principal at Rahul Education, Queen Mary’s High School

WhatsApp us

Integrating 21st century skills into education systems: From rhetoric to reality

Subscribe to the center for universal education bulletin, ramya vivekanandan rv ramya vivekanandan senior education specialist, learning assessment systems - gpe secretariat.

February 14, 2019

This is the third post in a series about  education systems alignment in teaching, learning, and assessing 21st century skills .

What does it mean to be a successful learner or graduate in today’s world? While in years past, a solid acquisition of the “three Rs” (reading, writing, and arithmetic) and mastery in the core academic subjects may have been the measure of attainment, the world of the 21 st century requires a radically different orientation. To participate effectively in the increasingly complex societies and globalized economy that characterize today’s world, students need to think critically, communicate effectively, collaborate with diverse peers, solve complex problems, adopt a global mindset, and engage with information and communications technologies, to name but just a few requirements. The new report from Brookings, “ Education system alignment for 21st century skills: Focus on assessment ,” illuminates this imperative in depth.

Recognizing that traditional education systems have generally not been preparing learners to face such challenges, the global education community has increasingly talked about and mobilized in favor of the changes required. This has resulted in a suite of initiatives and research around the broad area of “21st century skills,” which culminated most notably with the adoption of Sustainable Development Goal 4 and the Education 2030 agenda, including Target 4.7, which commits countries to ensure that learners acquire knowledge and skills in areas such as sustainable development, human rights, gender equality, global citizenship, and others.

In this landscape, Global Partnership for Education (GPE) has a core mandate of improving equity and learning by strengthening education systems. GPE supports developing countries, many of which are affected by fragility and conflict, to develop and implement robust education sector plans. Depending on the country, GPE implementation grants support a broad range of activities including teacher training, textbook provision, interventions to promote girls’ education, incentives for marginalized groups, the strengthening of data and learning assessment systems, early childhood education, and many other areas.

This work is buttressed by thematic work at the global level, including in the area of learning assessment. The strengthening of learning assessment systems is a strategic priority for GPE because of its relevance to both improving learning outcomes and ensuring effective and efficient education systems, which are two of the three key goals of the GPE strategic plan for the 2016-2020 period . The work on learning assessment includes the Assessment for Learning (A4L) initiative, which aims to strengthen learning assessment systems and to promote a holistic measurement of learning.

Under A4L, we are undertaking a landscape review on the measurement of 21st century skills, using a definition derived from Binkley et. al . and Scoular and Care :

“21st century skills are tools that can be universally applied to enhance ways of thinking, learning, working and living in the world. The skills include critical thinking/reasoning, creativity/creative thinking, problem solving, metacognition, collaboration, communication and global citizenship. 21st century skills also include literacies such as reading literacy, writing literacy, numeracy, information literacy, ICT [information and communications technologies] digital literacy, communication and can be described broadly as learning domains.”

Using this lens, the landscape review examines the research literature, the efforts of GPE partners that have been active in this space, and data collected from a sample of countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia in regard to the assessment of these skills. These research efforts were led by Brookings and coordinated by the UNESCO offices in Dakar and Bangkok. As another important piece of this work, we are also taking stock of the latest education sector plans and implementation grants of these same countries (nine in sub-Saharan Africa and six in Asia), to explore the extent to which the integration of 21st century skills is reflected in sector plans and, vitally, in their implementation.

Though the work is in progress, the initial findings provide food for thought. Reflecting the conclusions of the new report by Brookings, as well as its earlier breadth of work on skills mapping, a large majority of these 15 countries note ambitious objectives related to 21st century skills in their education sector plans, particularly in their vision or mission statements and/or statements of policy priorities. “Skills” such as creativity and innovation, critical thinking, problem-solving, decisionmaking, life and career skills, citizenship, personal and social responsibility, and information and communications technology literacy were strongly featured, as opposed to areas such as collaboration, communication, information literacy, and metacognition.

However, when we look at the planned interventions noted in these sector plans, there is not a strong indication that countries plan to operationalize their intentions to promote 21st century skills. Not surprisingly then, when we look at their implementation grants, which are one of the financing instruments through which education sector plans are implemented, only two of the 15 grants examined include activities aimed at promoting 21st century skills among their program components. Because the GPE model mandates that national governments determine the program components and allocation of resources for these within their grant, the bottom line seems to echo the findings of the Brookings report: vision and aspiration are rife, but action is scarce.

While the sample of countries studied in this exercise is small (and other countries’ education sector plans and grants may well include integration of 21st century skills), it’s the disconnect between the 15 countries’ policy orientation around these skills and their implementation that is telling. Why this gap? Why, if countries espouse the importance of 21st century skills in their sector plans, do they not concretely move to addressing them in their implementation? The reasons for this may be manifold, but the challenges highlighted by the Brookings report in terms of incorporating a 21 st century learning agenda in education systems are indeed telling. As a field, we still have much work to do to understand the nature of these skills, to develop learning progressions for them, and to design appropriate and authentic assessment of them. In other words, it may be that countries have difficulty in imagining how to move from rhetoric to reality.

However, in another perspective, there may be a challenge associated with how countries (and the broader education community) perceive 21st century skills in general. In contexts of limited resources, crowded curricula, inadequately trained teachers, fragility, weak governance, and other challenges that are characteristic of GPE partner countries, there is sometimes an unfortunate tendency to view 21st century skills and the “basics” as a tradeoff. In such settings, there can be a perception that 21st century skills are the concern of more advanced or higher-income countries. It is thus no wonder that, in the words of the Brookings report, “a global mobilization of efforts to respond to the 21CS [21st century skills] shift is non-existent, and individual countries struggle alone to plan the shift.”

This suggests that those who are committed to a holistic view of education have much work to do in terms of research, sharing of experience, capacity building, and advocacy around the potential and need for all countries, regardless of context, to move in this direction. The Brookings report makes a very valuable contribution in this regard. GPE’s landscape review, which will be published this spring, will inform how the partnership thinks about and approaches 21st century skills in its work and will thereby provide a complementary perspective.

Related Content

Helyn Kim, Esther Care, Alvin Vista

January 30, 2019

Tserennadmid Nyamkhuu, Jun Morohashi

February 5, 2019

Global Education K-12 Education

Global Economy and Development

Center for Universal Education

August 2, 2024

Modupe (Mo) Olateju, Grace Cannon, Kelsey Rappe

July 29, 2024

Sweta Shah, Donald Wertlieb, Charlotte Vuyiswa McClain-Nhlapo, Ruchi Kulbir Singh, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek

July 24, 2024

Home > Blog > Tips for Online Students > Top 10 Reasons Why Is Education Important

Getting Into College , Tips for Online Students , Tips for Students , Why Go to College

Top 10 Reasons Why Is Education Important

Updated: June 19, 2024

Published: April 15, 2020

Most of us have grown up being taught the importance of education. But why is education important? Through your frustrating school years, you may have thought that it was a waste of time, or was just something that you needed to do in order to get a job. Truth be told, however, education goes so much beyond just getting a job and making your parents happy. In fact, it’s one of the most powerful tools out there.

What Is Education?

Education means studying in order to obtain a deeper knowledge and understanding of a variety of subjects to be applied to daily life. Education is not limited to just knowledge from books, but can also be obtained through practical experiences outside of the classroom.

Top 10 Reasons: Why Is Education Important?

There are many different understandings and definitions of what education is, but one thing can be universally agreed upon, which is the importance of education — and here’s why.

1. Provides Stability

Education provides stability in life, and it’s something that no one can ever take away from you. By being well-educated and holding a college degree , you increase your chances for better career opportunities and open up new doors for yourself.

2. Provides Financial Security

On top of stability, education also provides financial security, especially in today’s society. A good education tends to lead to a higher paying job, as well as provide you with the skills needed to get there.

3. Needed For Equality

In order for the entire world to really become equal, it needs to start with education. If everyone was provided with the same opportunities to education , then there would be less gaps between social classes. Everyone would be able to have an equal chance at higher paying jobs — not just those that are already well-off.

4. Allows For Self-Dependency

The importance of education is evident when it comes to being self-dependent. If we are we educated, then it’s something that belongs to us, and only us, allowing us to rely on no one else other than ourselves. It can allow you to not only be financially independent, but also to make your own choices.

5. Make Your Dreams Come True

If you can dream it, you can achieve it. An education is the most powerful weapon you can possibly have, and with it, you can make all of your dreams come true. There are of course certain exceptions, depending on what you’re aiming for, but generally an education will take you as far as you’re willing to go.

6. A Safer World

Education is something that’s not only needed on a personal level, but also on a global level, as it’s something that keeps our world safe and makes it a more peaceful place. Education tends to teach people the difference between right and wrong, and can help people stay out of risky situations.

7. Confidence

Being self-confident is a major part of being successful in life. And what better way to gain that confidence than with an education? Your level of education is often considered a way to prove your knowledge, and it can give you the confidence to express your opinions and speak your mind.

8. A Part Of Society

In today’s society, having an education is considered a vital part of being accepted by those around you. Having an education is believed to make you a useful part of society, and can make you feel like a contributing member as well.

9. Economic Growth On A National Level

An educated society is crucial for economic growth. We need people to continue to learn and research in order to constantly stay innovative. Countries with higher literacy rates also tend to be in better economic situations. With a more educated population, more employment opportunities are opened.

10. Can Protect You

Education can protect you more than you know, not only on a financial level, but it can help prevent you from being taken advantage of by knowing how to read and write, such as knowing not to sign any bogus documents.

Photo by  Pixabay  from  Pexels

Education is important for children.

Children are the future of our world, making education crucial for them. Their knowledge is what’s going to keep our world alive and flourishing.

At Childhood

During the childhood development stages, the importance of education is stronger than ever. It’s a time for children to learn social and mental skills that will be crucial for their growth and success in the future. Education at childhood also offers a chance for self-discovery and to learn about their unique interests.

The importance of education in our lives goes far beyond what we can read in a textbook. Education also provides childhood with knowledge such as how to produce artwork and make music. Education allows us to analyze what’s in front of us, and even learn from our mistakes.

Goal Building

By learning from a young age, children are given the chance to start building goals for themselves. Education means having the logic to set your mind to something and achieve it.

Importance Of Education In Society

For a modern society, education is of utmost importance. There are so many influences coming from all directions, and education can help us decipher what we should take as true, and what we should take with a grain of salt. Education can mold people into functional members of society with the right kinds of values.

Productivity

Education is needed for a productive society. Our population only continues to increase, and in turn, so do our needs. We need a strong and efficient workforce of educated people to provide us with the services we need for everyday life.

The Impact Education Has On The World

With education, people can become better citizens, knowing right from wrong, allowing for a better society where laws are followed. An educated nation knows about the importance of voting, doing so with the knowledge not blindly, but also having an understanding of what their party truly stands for. Education can also help people get jobs, which is what a nation thrives on.

Inspiring Quotes On What Education Truly Is

Why is education important, and what is it exactly? While every person has a different understanding of its true meaning, here are some of the most inspiring quotes by some legendary people.

• “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” — Nelson Mandela
• “Education is the passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today.” — Malcolm X
• “An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.” — Benjamin Franklin
• “Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself.” — John Dewey

What Are Some Other Reasons Why Education Is Important?

There are endless reasons why education is so important, especially since it also has endless connotations and meanings.

Mind And Body

Our mind and bodies are connected more than we know. With a powerful, well-educated mind, so too are our bodies.

Education helps us understand how to best take care of ourselves, boosting our confidence and overall well-being. Studies have shown that each additional year of education can add up to 1.7 years to our lifespan at the age of 35.

The importance of education also extends to personal growth. By constantly learning, asking questions, and seeking knowledge, we can achieve things we never imagined before. Education helps us get to know ourselves better, whether through books, courses, or professional consultations.

Photo by  Burst  from  Pexels

Worldwide value.

Education is the best way to ensure a positive global perspective. Without proper education, it is difficult to understand what is considered appropriate and how to behave.

Education brings us closer to the goal of world peace by teaching us about our place in the world and our responsibilities to humanity. It instills values far beyond the classroom, encompassing lessons learned at home and through interactions with others. These teachings are essential aspects of what education entails, guiding our behavior and understanding of the world.

Sharpens Your Thinking

Education is essential for sharp and clear thinking. It keeps you informed about the world, making you aware of current events and the people around you. Education helps you understand your strengths and weaknesses, guiding you to focus on the right areas.

It enhances logical reasoning, enabling you to argue effectively with accurate facts and work through situations logically. Education keeps you focused and on track, knowing the right path for you.

It also promotes innovation and creativity, allowing your mind to reach its full potential. Education develops basic life skills and street smarts, teaching us how to best conduct ourselves daily.

Education can be the most freeing and empowering thing in the world. It enables you to live life to the fullest by gaining a vast amount of knowledge about the world. Education ensures continual learning from various sources, whether through people, newspapers, experiences, research, or traditional classes.

It breaks barriers, empowering people globally and offering equal opportunities for all socio-economic backgrounds. University of the People, a tuition-free, online university, exemplifies this by providing accessible higher education to everyone.

Education allows you to become the best version of yourself, discovering your interests, strengths, and place in the world, making you feel complete and self-aware.

Education In The Modern World

Education today is more important than ever before, and has reached new heights with new understandings of what it truly entails. Ask yourself “Why is education important?” and it will surely not be the same as anyone else’s answer.

While in modern society, holding a college degree is considered to be highly beneficial for a successful career and to be socially accepted, it is not the only means of education. Education is all around us in everything that we do, so use it wisely!

FAQ Section

What are the primary goals of education.

The primary goals of education are to impart knowledge, develop critical thinking, and foster personal and social growth. It aims to prepare individuals for the workforce, promote civic responsibility, and encourage lifelong learning.

How does education influence future opportunities?

Education enhances future opportunities by increasing employability, boosting earning potential, and providing a foundation for personal and professional growth. It opens doors to higher-paying jobs and further educational pursuits.

How does education vary across different countries?

Education varies globally in structure, quality, and accessibility due to differences in economic development, cultural values, and government policies. Some countries focus on standardized testing, while others emphasize holistic or experiential learning.

What is the role of technology in education?

Technology enhances education by providing access to online learning, digital resources, and interactive tools. It supports personalized learning, enables innovative teaching methods, and makes education more accessible and engaging.

How does education contribute to personal growth?

Education promotes personal growth by expanding knowledge, improving cognitive abilities, and fostering critical thinking. It helps develop self-awareness, emotional intelligence, and effective communication skills.

How does education address societal issues like discrimination?

Education combats discrimination by promoting inclusivity and awareness. It teaches about diversity, tolerance, and human rights, helping to break down prejudices and empower marginalized communities.

What are the economic benefits of investing in education?

Investing in education leads to higher productivity, increased innovation, and a more skilled workforce. It reduces poverty, boosts economic growth, and lowers reliance on social welfare programs.

Can education foster innovation and entrepreneurship?

Yes, education fosters innovation and entrepreneurship by encouraging creative thinking and problem-solving. It provides the skills and knowledge necessary for developing new ideas and launching successful businesses.

What role do educators play in shaping the educational experience?

Educators shape the educational experience by creating engaging learning environments, guiding students, and adapting teaching methods to meet diverse needs. They mentor and inspire students to achieve their full potential.

In this article

At UoPeople, our blog writers are thinkers, researchers, and experts dedicated to curating articles relevant to our mission: making higher education accessible to everyone. Read More

Navigating Spatial Ability for Mathematics Education: a Review and Roadmap

• REVIEW ARTICLE
• Open access
• Published: 17 August 2024
• Volume 36 , article number  90 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Kelsey E. Schenck   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3777-2085 1 &
• Mitchell J. Nathan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2058-7016 2  

Spatial skills can predict mathematics performance, with many researchers investigating how and why these skills are related. However, a literature review on spatial ability revealed a multiplicity of spatial taxonomies and analytical frameworks that lack convergence, presenting a confusing terrain for researchers to navigate. We expose two central challenges: (1) many of the ways spatial ability is defined and subdivided are often not based in well-evidenced theoretical and analytical frameworks, and (2) the sheer variety of spatial assessments. These challenges impede progress in designing spatial skills interventions for improving mathematics thinking based on causal principles, selecting appropriate metrics for documenting change, and analyzing and interpreting student outcome data. We offer solutions by providing a practical guide for navigating and selecting among the various major spatial taxonomies and instruments used in mathematics education research. We also identify current limitations of spatial ability research and suggest future research directions.

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Spatial ability can be broadly defined as imagining, maintaining, and manipulating spatial information and relations. Over the past several decades, researchers have found reliable associations between spatial abilities and mathematics performance (e.g., Newcombe, 2013 ; Young et al., 2018a ). However, the sheer plurality of spatial taxonomies and analytical frameworks that scholars use to describe spatial skills, the lack of theoretical spatial taxonomies, and the variety of spatial assessments available makes it very difficult for education researchers to make the appropriate selection of spatial measures for their investigations. Education researchers also face the daunting task of selecting the ideal spatial skills to design studies and interventions to enhance student learning and the development of reasoning in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) more broadly. To address these needs, we have provided a review that focuses on the relationship between spatial skills and mathematical thinking and learning. Our specific contribution is to offer a guide for educational researchers who recognize the importance of measuring spatial skills but who are themselves not spatial skills scholars. This guide will help researchers navigate and select among the various major taxonomies on spatial reasoning and among the various instruments for assessing spatial skills for use in mathematics education research.

We offer three central objectives for this paper. First, we aim to provide an updated review of the ways spatial ability is defined and subdivided. Second, we list some of the currently most widely administered instruments used to measure subcomponents of spatial ability. Third, we propose an organizational framework that acknowledges this complex picture and — rather than offer overly optimistic proposals for resolving long-standing complexities — offers ways for math education researchers to operate within this framework from an informed perspective. This review offers guidance through this complicated state of the literature to help STEM education researchers select appropriate spatial measures and taxonomies for their investigations, assessments, and interventions. We review and synthesize several lines of the spatial ability literature and provide researchers exploring the link between spatial ability and mathematics education with a guiding framework for research design. To foreshadow, this framework identifies three major design decisions that can help guide scholars and practitioners seeking to use spatial skills to enhance mathematics education research. The framework provides a theoretical basis to select: (1) a spatial ability taxonomy, (2) corresponding analytical frameworks, and (3) spatial tasks for assessing spatial performance (Fig.  1 ). This guiding framework is intended to provide educational researchers and practitioners with a common language and decision-making process for conducting research and instruction that engages learners’ spatial abilities. The intent is that investigators’ use of this framework may enhance their understanding of the associative and causal links between spatial and mathematical abilities, and thereby improve the body of mathematics education research and practice.

Major elements of an investigation into the role of spatial reasoning

The Importance of Spatial Reasoning for Mathematics and STEM Education

Spatial ability has been linked to the entrance into, retention in, and success within STEM fields (e.g., Shea et al., 2001 ; Wolfgang et al., 2003 ), while deficiencies in spatial abilities have been shown to create obstacles for STEM education (Harris et al., 2013 ; Wai et al., 2009 ). Although spatial skills are not typically taught in the general K-16 curriculum, these lines of research have led some scholars to make policy recommendations for explicitly teaching children about spatial thinking as a viable way to increase STEM achievement and retention in STEM education programs and career pathways (Sorby, 2009 ; Stieff & Uttal, 2015 ). Combined, the findings suggest that spatial ability serves as a gateway for entry into STEM fields (Uttal & Cohen, 2012 ) and that educational institutions should consider the importance of explicitly training students’ spatial thinking skills as a way to further develop students’ STEM skills.

Findings from numerous studies have demonstrated that spatial ability is critical for many domains of mathematics education, including basic numeracy and arithmetic (Case et al., 1996 ; Gunderson et al., 2012 ; Hawes et al., 2015 ; Tam et al., 2019 ) and geometry (Battista et al., 2018 ; Davis, 2015 ), as well as more advanced topics such as algebra word problem-solving (Oostermeijer et al., 2014 ), calculus (Sorby et al., 2013 ), and interpreting complex quantitative relationships (Tufte, 2001 ). For example, scores on the mathematics portion of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) are significantly positively correlated with scores on tests of spatial cognition (Sorby & Panther, 2020 ). Broadly, studies have found evidence of the connections between success on spatial tasks and mathematics tasks in children and adults. For example, first grade girls’ spatial skills were correlated with the frequency of retrieval and decomposition strategies when solving arithmetic problems (Laski et al., 2013 ), and these early spatial ability scores were the strongest predictors of their sixth-grade mathematics reasoning abilities (Casey et al., 2015 ). In adults ( n  = 101), spatial ability scores were positively associated with mathematics abilities measured through PISA mathematics questions (Schenck & Nathan, 2020 ).

Though there is a clear connection between spatial and mathematical abilities, understanding the intricacies of this relationship is difficult. Some scholars have sought to determine which mathematical concepts engage spatial thinking. For example, studies on specific mathematical concepts found spatial skills were associated with children’s one-to-one mapping (Gallistel & Gelman, 1992 ), missing-term problems (Cheng & Mix, 2014 ), mental computation (Verdine et al., 2014 ), and various geometry concepts (Hannafin et al., 2008 ). Schenck and Nathan ( 2020 ) identified associations between several specific sub-components of spatial reasoning and specific mathematics skills of adults. Specifically, adults’ mental rotation skills correlated with performance on questions about change and relationships, spatial orientation skills correlated with quantity questions, and spatial visualization skills correlated with questions about space and shape. Burte and colleagues ( 2017 ) proposed categories of mathematical concepts such as problem type, problem context, and spatial thinking level to target math improvements following spatial invention training. Their study concluded that mathematics problems that included visual representations, real-world contexts, and that involved spatial thinking are more likely to show improvement after embodied spatial training.

However, these lines of work are complicated by the variety of problem-solving strategies students employ when solving mathematics problems and issues with generalizability. While some students may rely on a specific spatial ability to solve a particular mathematics problem, others may use non-spatial approaches or apply spatial thinking differently for the same assessment item. For example, some students solving graphical geometric problem-solving tasks utilized their spatial skills by constructing and manipulating mental images of the problem, while others created external representations such as isometric sketches, alleviating the need for some aspects of spatial reasoning (Buckley et al., 2019 ). Though this difference could be attributed to lower spatial abilities in the students who used external representations, it could also be attributed to high levels of discipline-specific knowledge seen in domains such as geoscience (Hambrick et al., 2012 ), physics (Kozhevnikov & Thorton, 2006 ), and chemistry (Stieff, 2007 ). Though some amount of generalization is needed in spatial and mathematics education research, investigators should take care not to overgeneralize findings of specific spatial ability and mathematic domain connections.

This selective review shows ample reasons to attend to spatial abilities in mathematics education research and the design of effective interventions. However, studies across this vast body of work investigating the links between spatial abilities and mathematics performance use different spatial taxonomies, employ different spatial measures, and track improvement across many different topics of mathematics education. This variety makes it difficult for mathematics education scholars to draw clear causal lines between specific spatial skills interventions and specific mathematics educational improvements and for educators to follow clear guidance as to how to improve mathematical reasoning through spatial skills development.

The Varieties of Approaches to Explaining the Spatial-Mathematics Connection

Meta-analyses have suggested that domain-general reasoning skills such as fluid reasoning and verbal skills may mediate the relationships between spatial and mathematical skills (Atit et al., 2022 ), and that the mathematical domain is a moderator with the strongest association between logical reasoning and spatial skills (Xie et al., 2020 ). Despite these efforts, the specific nature of these associations remains largely unknown. Several lines of research have suggested processing requirements shared among mathematical and spatial tasks could account for these associations. Brain imaging studies have shown similar brain activation patterns in both spatial and mathematics tasks (Amalric & Dehaene, 2016 ; Hawes & Ansari, 2020 ; Hubbard et al., 2005 ; Walsh, 2003 ). Hawes and Ansari’s ( 2020 ) review of psychology, neuroscience, and education spatial research described four possible explanatory accounts (spatial representations of numbers, shared neuronal processing, spatial modeling, and working memory) for how spatial visualization was linked to numerical competencies. They suggest integrating the four accounts to explain an underlying singular mechanism to explain lasting neural and behavioral correlations between spatial and numerical processes. In a study of spatial and mathematical thinking, Mix et al. ( 2016 ) showed a strong within-domain factor structure and overlapping variance irrespective of task-specificity. They proposed that the ability to recognize and decompose objects (i.e., form perception ), visualize spatial information, and relate distances in one space to another (i.e., spatial scaling ) are shared processes required when individuals perform a range of spatial reasoning and mathematical reasoning tasks.

Efforts to date to document the relationship between mathematics performance and spatial skills or to enhance mathematics through spatial skills interventions show significant limitations in their theoretical framing. One significant issue is theory-based. Currently, there is no commonly accepted definition of spatial ability or its exact sub-components in the literature (Carroll, 1993 ; Lohman, 1988 ; McGee, 1979 ; Michael et al., 1957 ; Yilmaz, 2009 ). For example, many studies designed to investigate and improve spatial abilities have tended to focus on either a particular spatial sub-component or a particular mathematical skill. Much of the research has primarily focused on measuring only specific aspects of object-based spatial ability, such as mental rotation. Consequently, there is insufficient guidance for mathematics and STEM education researchers to navigate the vast landscape of spatial taxonomies and analytical frameworks, select the most appropriate measures for documenting student outcomes, design potential interventions targeting spatial abilities, select appropriate metrics, and analyze and interpret outcome data.

One notable program of research that has been particularly attentive to the spatial qualities of mathematical reasoning is the work by Battista et al. ( 2018 ). They collected think-aloud data about emerging spatial descriptions from individual interviews and teaching experiments with elementary and middle-grade students to investigate the relationship between spatial reasoning and geometric reasoning. Across several studies, the investigators seldom observed the successful application of generalized object-based spatial skills of the type typically measured by psychometric instruments of spatial ability. Rather, they found that students’ geometric reasoning succeeded when “spatial visualization and spatial analytic reasoning [were] based on operable knowledge of relevant geometric properties of the spatial-geometric objects under consideration” (Battista et al., p 226; emphasis added). By highlighting the ways that one’s reasoning aligns with geometric properties, Battista and colleagues shifted the analytic focus away from either general, psychological constructs that can be vague and overly broad, and away from a narrow set of task-specific skills, to a kind of intermediate-level that are relevant for describing topic and task-specific performance while identifying forms of reasoning that may generalize beyond the specific tasks and objects at hand. For example, property-based spatial analytic reasoning might focus on an invariant geometric property, such as the property of rectangles that their diagonals always bisect each other, to guide the decomposition and transformation of rectangles and their component triangles in service of a geometric proof. Establishing bridges and analytic distinctions between education domain-centric analyses of this sort and traditional psychometric accounts about domain-general spatial abilities is central to our review and broader aims to relate mathematical reasoning processes to spatial processes.

Selecting a Spatial Taxonomy

As noted, a substantial body of empirical evidence indicates that students’ spatial abilities figure into their mathematical reasoning, offering promising pathways toward interventions designed to improve math education. To capitalize on this association, one of the first decisions mathematics education researchers must make is selecting a spatial taxonomy that suits the data collected and analyzed. A spatial taxonomy is an organizational system for classifying spatial abilities and, thus, serves an important role in shaping the theoretical framework for any inquiry as well as interpreting and generalizing findings from empirical investigations. However, the manner in which spatial abilities are subdivided, defined, and named has changed over the decades of research on this topic. In practice, the decision for how to define and select spatial abilities is often difficult for researchers who are not specialists due to the expansive literature in this area.

In an attempt to make the vast number of spatial definitions and subcomponents more navigable for mathematics researchers and educators, we describe three general types of spatial taxonomies that are reflected in the current literature: Those that (1) classify according to different specific spatial abilities, (2) distinguish between different broad spatial abilities, and (3) those that treat spatial abilities as derived from a single, or unitary, factor structure. Although this is not a comprehensive account, these spatial taxonomies were chosen to highlight the main sub-factor dissociations in the literature.

Specific-Factor Structures

Since the earliest conceptualization (e.g., Galton, 1879 ), the communities of researchers studying spatial abilities have struggled to converge on one all-encompassing definition or provide a complete list of its subcomponents. Though the literature provides a variety of definitions of spatial ability that focus on the capacity to visualize and manipulate mental images (e.g., Battista, 2007 ; Gaughran, 2002 ; Lohman, 1979 ; Sorby, 1999 ), some scholars posit that it may be more precise to define spatial ability as a constellation of quantifiably measurable skills based on performance on tasks that load on specific individual spatial factors (Buckley et al., 2018 ). Difficulties directly observing the cognitive processes and neural structures involved in spatial reasoning have, in practice, spurred substantive research focused on uncovering the nature of spatial ability and its subcomponents. Historically, scholars have used psychometric methods to identify a variety of specific spatial subcomponents, including closure flexibility/speed (Carroll, 1993 ), field dependence/independence (McGee, 1979 ; Witkin, 1950 ), spatial relations (Carroll, 1993 ; Lohman, 1979 ), spatial orientation (Guilford & Zimmerman, 1948 ), spatial visualization (Carroll, 1993 ; McGee, 1979 ), and speeded rotation (Lohman, 1988 ). However, attempts to dissociate subfactors were often met with difficulty due to differing factor analytic techniques and variations in the spatial ability tests that were used (D'Oliveira, 2004 ). The subsequent lack of cohesion in this field of study led to different camps of researchers adopting inconsistent names for spatial subcomponents (Cooper & Mumaw, 1985 ; McGee, 1979 ) and divergent factorial frameworks (Hegarty & Waller, 2005 ; Yilmaz, 2009 ). Such a lack of convergence is clearly problematic for the scientific study of spatial ability and its application to mathematics education research.

In the last few decades, several attempts have been made to dissociate subcomponents of spatial ability further. Yilmaz ( 2009 ) combined aspects of the models described above with studies identifying dynamic spatial abilities and environmental spatial abilities to divide spatial ability into eight factors, which acknowledge several spatial skills (e.g., environmental ability and spatiotemporal ability) needed in real-life situations. More recently, Buckley et al. ( 2018 ) proposed an extended model for spatial ability. This model combines many ideas from the previously described literature and the spatial factors identified in the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of intelligence (see Schneider & McGrew, 2012 ). It currently includes 25 factors that can also be divided into two broader categories of static and dynamic, with the authors acknowledging that additional factors may be added as research warrants. It is unclear how a dissociation of this many subfactors could be practically applied in empirical research, which we regard as an important goal for bridging theory and research practices.

Dissociation Between Spatial Orientation and Rotational Spatial Visualization

Though specific definitions vary, many authors of the models discussed above agree on making a dissociation between spatial orientation and visualization skills. While performing perspective-taking (a subfactor of spatial orientation) and rotational spatial visualization tasks often involve a form of rotation, several studies have indicated that these skills are psychometrically separable. Measures for these skills often ask participants to anticipate the appearance of arrays of objects after either a rotation (visualization) of the objects or a change in the objects’ perspective (perspective-taking). Findings show that visualization and perspective-taking tasks have different error patterns and activate different neural processes (e.g., Huttenlocher & Presson, 1979 ; Kozhevnikov & Hegarty, 2001 ; Wraga et al., 2000 ). Perspective rotation tasks often lead to egocentric errors such as reflection errors when trying to reorient perspectives, while object rotation task errors are not as systematic (Kozhevnikov & Hegarty, 2001 ; Zacks et al., 2000 ). For example, to solve a spatial orientation/perspective-taking task (Fig.  2 A), participants may imagine their bodies moving to a new position or viewpoint with the objects of interest remaining stationary. In contrast, the objects in a spatial visualization task are often rotated in one’s imagination (Fig.  2 B). Behavioral and neuroscience evidence is consistent with these findings, suggesting a dissociation between an object-to-object representational system and a self-to-object representational system (Hegarty & Waller, 2004 ; Kosslyn et al., 1998 ; Zacks et al., 1999 ). Thus, within the specific-factor structure of spatial ability, spatial orientation/perspective-taking can be considered a separate factor from spatial visualization/mental rotation (Thurstone, 1950 ).

Exemplars of spatial orientation, mental rotation, and non-rotational spatial visualization tasks. The spatial orientation task ( A ) is adapted from Hegarty and Waller’s ( 2004 ) Object Perception/Spatial Orientation Test. The mental rotation task ( B ) is adapted from Vandenberg and Kuse’s ( 1978 ) Mental Rotation Test. The non-rotational spatial visualization task ( C ) is adapted from Ekstrom et al.’s ( 1976 ) Paper Folding Task

Dissociation Between Mental Rotation and Non-rotational Spatial Visualization

The boundaries between specific factors of spatial ability are often blurred and context dependent. To address this, Ramful and colleagues ( 2017 ) have created a three-factor framework that clarifies the distinctions between spatial visualization and spatial orientation (see the “Dissociation Between Spatial Orientation and Rotational Spatial Visualization” section) by treating mental rotation as a separate factor. Their framework is unique in that they used mathematics curricula, rather than solely basing their analysis on a factor analysis, to identify three sub-factors of spatial ability: (1) mental rotation, (2) spatial orientation, and (3) spatial visualization. Mental rotation describes how one imagines how a two-dimensional or three-dimensional object would appear after it has been turned (Fig.  2 B). Mental rotation is a cognitive process that has received considerable attention from psychologists (Bruce & Hawes, 2015 ; Lombardi et al., 2019 ; Maeda & Yoon, 2013 ). Spatial orientation , in contrast, involves egocentric representations of objects and locations and includes the notion of perspective-taking (Fig.  2 A). Spatial visualization in their classification system (previously an umbrella term for many spatial skills that included mental rotation) describes mental transformations that do not require mental rotation or spatial orientation (Linn & Peterson, 1985 ) and can be measured through tasks like those shown in Fig.  2 C that involve operations such as paper folding and unfolding. Under this definition, spatial visualization may involve complex sequences in which intermediate steps may need to be stored in spatial working memory (Shah & Miyake, 1996 ). In mathematics, spatial visualization skills often correlate with symmetry, geometric translations, part-to-whole relationships, and geometric nets (Ramful et al., 2017 ).

Summary and Implications

As described above , decades of research on spatial ability have involved scholars using factor-analytic methods to identify and define various spatial sub-components. The results of these effects have created a multitude of specific-factor structures, with models identifying anywhere from two to 25 different spatial subcomponents. However, there are two dissociations that may be particularly important for mathematics education research. The first is the dissociation between spatial orientation and spatial visualization abilities. Spatial orientation tasks typically involve rotating one’s perspective for viewing an object or scene, while spatial visualization tasks require imagining object rotation. The second dissociation is between mental rotation and non-rotational spatial visualization. While this distinction is relatively recent, it separates the larger spatial visualization sub-component into tasks that either involve rotating imagined objects or a sequence of visualization tasks that do not require mental rotation or spatial orientation. The historical focus on psychometric accounts of spatial ability strove to identify constructs that could apply generally to various forms of reasoning, yet it has contributed to a complex literature that may be difficult for scholars who are not steeped in the intricacies of spatial reasoning research to parse and effectively apply to mathematics education.

Studies of mathematical reasoning and learning that rely on specific-factor structures can yield different results and interpretations depending on their choices of factors. For example, Schenck et al. ( 2022 ) fit several models using different spatial sub-factors to predict undergraduates’ production of verbal mathematical insights. The authors demonstrated that combining mental rotation and non-rotational spatial visualization into a single factor (per McGee, 1979 ) rather than separating them (per Ramful et al., 2017 ) can lead to conflicting interpretations on the relevance of these skills for improving mathematics. Some scholars argue that a weakness of many traditional specific-factor structures of spatial ability is that they rely on exploratory factor analysis rather than confirmatory factor analyses informed by a clear theoretical basis of spatial ability (Uttal et al., 2013 ; Young et al., 2018b ). Finding differing results based on small and reasonable analytic choices presents a serious problem for finding convergence of the role of particular spatial abilities on particular mathematics concepts.

Broad-Factor Structures

Alternative approaches to factor-analytic methods rely on much broader distinctions between spatial ability subcomponents. We refer to these alternatives as broad-factor structure approaches since their categorizations align with theoretically motivated combinations of specific spatial ability subfactors. Some scholars who draw on broad-factor structures have argued for a partial dissociation (Ferguson et al., 2015 ; Hegarty et al., 2006 , 2018 ; Jansen, 2009 ; Potter, 1995 ). Large-scale spatial abilities involve reasoning about larger-scale objects and space, such as physical navigation and environmental maps. Small-scale spatial abilities are defined as those that predominantly rely on mental transformations of shapes or objects (e.g., mental rotation tasks). A meta-analysis (Wang et al., 2014 ) examining the relationship between small- and large-scale abilities provided further evidence that these two factors should be defined separately. Hegarty et al. ( 2018 ) recommend measuring large-scale abilities through sense-of-direction measures and navigation activities. These scholars suggest that small-scale abilities, such as mental rotation, may be measured through typical spatial ability tasks like those discussed in the “Choosing Spatial Tasks in Mathematics Education Research” section of this paper.

Other lines of research that use broad-factor structures have drawn on linguistic, cognitive, and neuroscientific findings to develop a 2 × 2 classification system that distinguishes between intrinsic and extrinsic information along one dimension, and static and dynamic tasks another an orthogonal dimension (Newcombe & Shipley, 2015 ; Uttal et al., 2013 ). Intrinsic spatial skills involve attention to a single object's spatial properties, while extrinsic spatial skills predominately rely on attention to the spatial relationships between objects. The second dimension in this classification system defines static tasks as those that involve recognizing and thinking about objects and their relations. In contrast, dynamic tasks often move beyond static coding of the spatial features of an object and its relations to imagining spatial transformations of one or more objects.

Uttal and colleagues ( 2013 ) describe how this 2 × 2 broad-factor classification framework can be mapped onto Linn and Peterson’s ( 1985 ) three-factor model, breaking spatial ability into spatial perception, mental rotation, and spatial visualization sub-factors. Spatial visualization tasks fall into the intrinsic classification and can address static and dynamic reasoning depending on whether the objects are unchanged or require spatial transformations. The Embedded Figures Test (Fig.  3 A; Witkin et al., 1971 ) is an example of an intrinsic-static classification, while Ekstrom and colleagues’ ( 1976 ) Form Board Test and Paper Folding Test (Fig.  3 B) are two examples of spatial visualization tasks that measure the intrinsic-dynamic classification. Mental rotation tasks (e.g., the Mental Rotations Test of Vandenberg & Kuse, 1978 ) also represent the intrinsic-dynamic category. Spatial perception tasks (e.g., water level tasks; Fig.  3 C; see Inhelder & Piaget, 1958 ) capture the extrinsic-static category in the 2 × 2 because they require coding spatial position information between objects or gravity without manipulating them. Furthermore, Uttal et al. ( 2013 ) address a limitation of Linn and Peterson’s ( 1985 ) model by including the extrinsic/dynamic classification, which they note can be measured through spatial orientation and navigation instruments such as the Guilford-Zimmerman Spatial Orientation Task (Fig.  3 D; Guilford & Zimmerman, 1948 ).

Exemplar tasks that map to Uttal and colleagues’ ( 2013 ) framework . The intrinsic-static task ( A ) is adapted from Witkin and colleagues’ ( 1971 ) Embedded Figures Test. The intrinsic-dynamic task ( B ) is adapted from Ekstrom and colleagues’ ( 1976 ) Paper Folding Task. The extrinsic-static task ( C ) is adapted from Piaget and Inhelder’s ( 1956 ) water level tasks. The extrinsic-dynamic task ( D ) is adapted from Guilford and Zimmerman’s ( 1948 ) Spatial Orientation Survey Test

Though Uttal et al.’s ( 2013 ) classification provides a helpful framework for investigating spatial ability and its links to mathematics (Young et al., 2018b ), it faces several challenges. Some critics posit that spatial tasks often require a combination of spatial subcomponents and cannot be easily mapped onto one domain in the framework (Okamoto et al., 2015 ). For example, a think-aloud task might ask students to describe a different viewpoint of an object. The student may imagine a rotated object (intrinsic-dynamic), imagine moving their body to the new viewpoint (extrinsic-dynamic), use a combination of strategies, or employ a non-spatial strategy such as logical deduction. Additionally, an experimental study by Mix et al. ( 2018 ) testing the 2 × 2 classification framework using confirmatory factor analysis on data from children in kindergarten, 3rd, and 6th grades failed to find evidence for the static-dynamic dimension at any age or for the overall 2 × 2 classification framework. This study demonstrates that there are limitations to this framework in practice. It suggests that other frameworks with less dimensionality may be more appropriate for understanding children's spatial abilities.

Even in light of these challenges, broad-factor taxonomies can benefit researchers who do not expect specific sub-factors of spatial ability to be relevant for their data or those controlling for spatial ability as part of an investigation of a related construct. Currently, no validated and reliable instruments have been explicitly designed to assess these broad-factor taxonomies. Instead, the scholars proposing these broad-factor taxonomies suggest mapping existing spatial tasks, which are usually tied to specific sub-factors of spatial ability, to the broader categories.

Unitary-Factor Structure

Many scholars understand spatial ability to be composed of a set of specific or broad factors. Neuroimaging studies have even provided preliminary evidence of a distinction between object-based abilities such as mental rotation and orientation skills (e.g., Kosslyn & Thompson, 2003 ). However, there is also empirical support for considering spatial ability as a unitary construct . Early studies (Spearman,  1927 ; Thurstone,  1938 ) identified spatial ability as one factor separate from general intelligence that mentally operates on spatial or visual images. Evidence for a unitary model of spatial ability proposes a common genetic network that supports all spatial abilities (Malanchini et al., 2020 ; Rimfeld et al., 2017 ). When a battery of 10 gamified measures of spatial abilities was given to 1,367 twin pairs, results indicated that tests assessed a single spatial ability factor and that the one-factor model of spatial ability fit better than the two-factor model, even when controlling for a common genetic factor (Rimfeld et al., 2017 ). In another study, Malanchini et al. ( 2020 ) administered 16 spatial tests clustered into three main sub-components: Visualization , Navigation , and Object Manipulation . They then conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses to fit one-factor (Spatial Ability), two-factor (Spatial Orientation and Object Manipulation), and three-factor models (Visualization, Navigation, and Object Manipulation). The one-factor model gave the best model fit, even when controlling for general intelligence.

A unitary structure is beneficial for researchers interested in questions about general associations between mathematics and spatial ability or for those using spatial ability as a moderator in their analyses. However, to date, no valid and reliable instruments have been created to fit within the unitary taxonomy, such as those that include various spatial items. Instead, researchers who discuss spatial ability as a unitary construct often choose one or multiple well-known spatial measures based on a particular sub-factor of spatial ability (e.g., Boonen et al., 2013 ; Burte et al., 2017 ). This issue motivates the need for an evidence-based, theory-grounded task selection procedure as well as the need to develop a unitary spatial cognition measure. In the absence of a single spatial cognition measure designed to assess spatial ability from a unitary perspective, researchers will need to think critically about selecting measures and analytic frameworks for their studies to cover a range of spatial ability sub-factors and address the limitations of such decisions.

This section reviewed ways spatial abilities have been historically defined and subdivided, with a focus on three of the most widely reported taxonomies: specific-factor structure, broad-factor structure, and unitary structure. The specific-factor structure taxonomy includes subcomponents, such as spatial orientation and rotational and non-rotational spatial visualization, that primarily arise using factor-analytic methods such as exploratory factor analyses. However, discrepancies in factor analytic techniques and test variations led to divergent nomenclature and factorial frameworks. A few dissociations in spatial skills arose from these well-supported methods, such as the distinction between spatial orientation and perspective-taking. The broad-factor structures taxonomy dissociates spatial abilities based on theoretically motivated categories, such as large-scale and small-scale spatial abilities. While these classifications may be helpful for investigating the links between spatial abilities and mathematics, there is currently no empirical evidence to support using these frameworks in practice. The unitary structure taxonomy is based on factor-analytic evidence for a single, overarching spatial ability factor that is separate from general intelligence. Despite the potential advantages of simplicity, there are currently no valid and reliable instruments for measuring a single spatial factor, so this must be based on performance using instruments that measure performance for a specific factor or are imputed across multiple instruments. Additional complexities of directly applying existing measures to mathematics education research include the awareness that mathematical task performance often involves the use of a variety of spatial and non-spatial skills.

Choosing Spatial Tasks in Mathematics Education Research

The context of mathematical reasoning and learning often leads to scenarios where the choice of spatial sub-components influences interpretations. Given the complex nature of spatial ability and the reliance on exploratory rather than confirmatory analyses, there is a need for dissociation approaches with clearer theoretical foundations. Due to the absence of comprehensive spatial cognition measures that address the possible broad-factor and unitary structure of spatial ability, researchers often resort to well-established spatial measures focusing on specific sub-factors, necessitating critical consideration in task selection and analytical frameworks. Thus, there is a need for evidence-based, theory-grounded task selection procedures to help address the current limitations in spatial ability as it relates to mathematics education research.

With so many spatial ability taxonomies to choose from, education researchers must carefully select tasks and surveys that match their stated research goals and theoretical frameworks, the spatial ability skills of interest, and the populations under investigation. As mentioned, mathematics education researchers often select spatial tasks based on practical motivations, such as access or familiarity, rather than theoretical ones. These decisions can be complicated by the vast number of spatial tasks, with little guidance for which ones best align with the various spatial taxonomies. In recent years, there has been a concerted effort by groups such as the Spatial Intelligence and Learning Center (spatiallearning.org) to collect and organize a variety of spatial measurements in one place. However, there is still work to be done to create a list of spatial instruments that researchers can easily navigate. To help guide researchers with these decisions, we have compiled a list of spatial instruments referenced in this paper and matched them with their associated spatial sub-components and intended populations (Table  1 ). These instruments primarily consist of psychometric tests initially designed to determine suitability for occupations such as in the military before being adapted for use with university and high school students (Hegaryt & Waller, 2005 ). As such, the majority of instruments are intended to test specific spatial sub-components derived from factor-analytic methods and were created by psychologists for use in controlled laboratory-based studies rather than in classroom contexts (Atit et al., 2020 ; Lowrie et al., 2020 ). Therefore, we have organized Table  1 by specific spatial sub-components described in the “Specific-Factor Structures” section that overlap with skills found in mathematics curricula as proposed by Ramful and colleagues ( 2017 ).

Comparing the instruments in these ways reveals several vital gaps that must be addressed to measure spatial cognition in a way that correlates with mathematics and spatial abilities across the lifespan. In particular, this analysis reveals an over-representation of certain spatial sub-components, such as mental rotation and spatial visualization, which also map to quadrants of the 2 × 2 (intrinsic-extrinsic/static-dynamic) classification system described in the “Broad-Factor Structures” section. It shows a pressing need for more tasks explicitly designed for other broad sub-components, such as the extrinsic-static classifications. It also reveals that the slate of available instruments is dominated by tasks that have only been tested on adults and few measures that test more than one subcomponent. These disparities are essential for educational considerations and are taken up in the final section.

Due to the sheer number of spatial tasks, the observations that these tasks may not load consistently on distinct spatial ability factors and the lack of tasks that address broad and unitary factor structures, it is not possible in the scope of this review to discuss every task-factor relationship. As a practical alternative, we have grouped spatial ability tasks into three aggregated categories based on their specific-factor dissociations, as discussed in the previous section: Spatial orientation tasks, non-rotational spatial visualization tasks, and mental rotation tasks (for examples, see Fig.  2 ). We have chosen these three categories for two reasons: (1) there is empirical evidence linking these spatial sub-categories to mathematical thinking outcomes, and (2) these categories align with Ramful et al.’s ( 2017 ) three-factor framework, which is one of the only spatial frameworks that was designed with links to mathematical thinking in mind. We acknowledge that other scholars may continue to identify different aggregations of spatial reasoning tasks, including those used with mechanical reasoning and abstract reasoning tasks (e.g., Tversky, 2019 ; Wai et al., 2009 ). In our aggregated categories, mechanical reasoning tasks would align with either mental rotation or non-rotational tasks depending on the specific task demands. In contrast, abstract reasoning tasks would align most closely with non-rotational spatial visualization tasks.

As there are no universally accepted measures of spatial ability for each spatial factor, we have narrowed our discussion to include exemplars of validated, cognitive, pen-and-pencil spatial ability tasks. These tasks have been historically associated with various spatial ability factors rather than merely serving as measures of general intelligence or visuospatial working memory (Carroll, 1993 ) and are easily implemented and scored by educators and researchers without specialized software or statistical knowledge. Notably, this discussion of spatial ability tasks and instruments excludes self-report questionnaires such as the Navigational Strategy Questionnaire (Zhong & Kozhevnikov, 2016 ) and the Santa Barbara Sense of Direction Scale (Hegarty et al., 2002 ); navigation simulations such as the Virtual SILC Test of Navigation (Weisberg et al., 2014 ) and SOIVET-Maze (da Costa et al., 2018 ); and tasks that involve physical manipulation such as the Test of Spatial Ability (Verdine et al., 2014 ). As such, we were unable to find any published, validated instruments for large-scale spatial orientation, a sub-factor of spatial orientation, that meet our inclusion criteria.

Additionally, we would like to highlight one instrument that does not fit into the categories presented in the following sections but may be of use to researchers. The Spatial Reasoning Instrument (SRI; Ramful et al., 2017 ) is a multiple-choice test that consists of three spatial subscales (spatial orientation, spatial visualization, and mental rotation). Notably, the questions that measure spatial visualization are specifically designed not to require mental rotation or spatial orientation. Unlike previously mentioned instruments, the SRI is not a speed test, though students are given a total time limit. This instrument targets middle school students and was designed to align more closely with students’ mathematical curricular experiences rather than a traditional psychological orientation. Mathematical connections in the SRI include visualizing lines of symmetry, using two-dimensional nets to answer questions about corresponding three-dimensional shapes, and reflecting objects.

In the next sections, we detail the types of tasks and instruments commonly used to measure spatial orientation, non-rotational spatial visualization, and mental rotation. Ultimately, these help form a guide for navigating and selecting among the various instruments for assessing spatial skills in relation to mathematical reasoning.

Spatial Orientation Tasks

Much like spatial ability more generally, spatial orientation skills fit into the broad distinctions of large-scale (e.g., wayfinding, navigation, and scaling abilities) and small-scale (e.g., perspective-taking and directional sense) skills, with small-scale spatial orientation skills being shown to be correlated with larger-scale spatial orientation skills (Hegarty & Waller, 2004 ; Hegarty et al., 2002 ). Aspects of mathematical thinking that may involve spatial orientation include scaling, reading maps and graphs, identifying orthogonal views of objects, and determining position and location. Although few empirical studies have attempted to determine statistical associations between spatial orientation and mathematics, spatial orientation has been correlated with some forms of scholastic mathematical reasoning. One area of inquiry showed associations between spatial orientation and early arithmetic and number line estimation (Cornu et al., 2017 ; Zhang & Lin, 2015 ). In another, spatial orientation skills were statistically associated with problem-solving strategies and flexible strategy use during high school-level geometric and non-geometric tasks (Tartre, 1990 ). Studies of disoriented children as young as three years old show that they reorient themselves based on the Euclidean geometric properties of distance and direction, which may contribute to children's developing abstract geometric intuitions (Izard et al., 2011 ; Lee et al., 2012 ; Newcombe et al., 2009 ).

Historically, the Guilford-Zimmerman (GZ) Spatial Orientation Test ( 1948 ) was used to measure spatial orientation. Critics have shown that this test may be too complicated and confusing for participants (Kyritsis & Gulliver, 2009 ) and that the task involves both spatial orientation and spatial visualization (Lohman, 1979 ; Schultz, 1991 ). To combat the GZ Spatial Orientation Test problems, Kozhevnikov and Hegarty ( 2001 ) developed the Object Perspective Taking Test, which was later revised into the Object Perspective/Spatial Orientation Test (see Fig.  2 A; Hegarty & Waller, 2004 ). Test takers are prevented from physically moving the test booklet, and all items involved an imagined perspective change of at least 90°. Unlike previous instruments, results from the Object Perspective/Spatial Orientation Test showed a dissociation between spatial orientation and spatial visualization factors (though they were highly correlated) and correlated with self-reported judgments of large-scale spatial cognition. A similar instrument, the Perspective Taking Test for Children, has been developed for younger children. (Frick et al., 2014a , 2014b ). Additionally, simpler versions of these tasks that asked participants to match an object to one that has been drawn from an alternative point of view have also been used, such as those in the Spatial Reasoning Instrument (Ramful et al., 2017 ).

Non-Rotational Spatial Visualization Tasks

With differing definitions of spatial visualization, measures of this spatial ability sub-component often include tasks that evaluate other spatial ability skills, such as cross-sectioning tasks (e.g., Mental Cutting Test; CEEB, 1939 , and Santa Barbara Solids Test; Cohen & Hegarty, 2012 ), that may require elements of spatial orientation or mental rotation. Though these tasks may be relevant for mathematical thinking, this section focuses on tasks that do not overtly require mental rotation. Non-rotational spatial visualization may be involved in several aspects of mathematical thinking, including reflections (Ramful et al., 2015 ) and visual-spatial geometry (Hawes et al., 2017 ; Lowrie et al., 2019 ), visualizing symmetry (Ramful et al., 2015 ), symbolic comparison (Hawes et al., 2017 ), and imagining problem spaces (Fennema & Tarte, 1985 ). A recent study by Lowrie and Logan ( 2023 ) posits that developing students’ non-rotational spatial visualization abilities may be related to better mathematics scores by improving students generalized mathematical reasoning skills and spatial working memory.

The three tests for non-rotational spatial visualization come from the Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests developed by Educational Testing Services (Ekstrom et al., 1976 ). These instruments were developed for research on cognitive factors in adult populations. The first instrument is the Paper Folding Test (PFT), one of the most commonly used tests for measuring spatial visualization (see Fig.  2 C). In this test, participants view diagrams of a square sheet of paper being folded and then punched with a hole. They are asked to select the picture that correctly shows the resulting holes after the paper is unfolded. Though this task assumes participants imagine unfolding the paper without the need to rotate, studies have shown that problem attributes (e.g., number and type of folds and fold occlusions) impact PFT accuracy and strategy use (Burte et al., 2019a ).

The second instrument is the Form Board Test. Participants are shown an outline of a complete geometric figure with a row of five shaded pieces. The task is to decide which of the shaded pieces will make the complete figure when put together. During the task, participants are told that the pieces can be turned but not flipped and can sketch how they may fit together.

The third instrument, the Surface Development Test, asks participants to match the sides of a net of a figure to the sides of a drawing of a three-dimensional figure. Like the PFT, strategy use may also impact accuracy on these two measures. This led to the development of a similar Make-A-Dice test (Burte et al., 2019b ), which relies on the number of squares in a row and consecutive folding in different directions rather than just increasing the number of folds to increase difficulty. Additionally, none of these three instruments were explicitly designed to test non-rotational spatial visualization but rather a broader definition of spatial visualization that includes mental rotation. Thus, it is possible that some participants’ strategies may include mental rotation or spatial orientation.

Other common types of spatial visualization tasks include embedded figures adapted from the Gottschaldt Figures Test (Gottschaldt, 1926 ). These tasks measure spatial perception, field-independence, and the ability to disembed shapes from a background, which may be a necessary problem-solving skill (Witkin et al., 1977 ). One instrument, the Embedded Figures Test, originally consisted of 24 trials during which a participant is presented with a complex figure, then a simple figure, and then shown the complex figure again with instructions to locate the simple figure within it (Witkin, 1950 ). Others have used Witkin’s ( 1950 ) stimuli as a basis to develop various embedded figures tests, including the Children’s Embedded Figures Test (Karp & Konstadt, 1963 ) and the Group Embedded Figure Test (Oltman et al., 1971 ).

Mental Rotation Tasks

Mental rotation can be broadly defined as a cognitive operation in which a mental image is formed and rotated in space. Though mental rotation skills are often subsumed under spatial visualization or spatial relations sub-components, they can be treated as a separate skill from spatial orientation and spatial visualization (Linn & Peterson, 1985 ; Shepard & Metzler, 1971 ). As many definitions of general spatial ability include a “rotation” aspect, several studies have investigated the links between mental rotation and mathematics. For young children, cross-sectional studies have shown mixed results. In some studies, significant correlations were found between mental rotation and both calculation and arithmetic skills (Bates et al., 2021 ; Cheng & Mix, 2014 ; Gunderson et al., 2012 ; Hawes et al., 2015 ). Conversely, Carr et al. ( 2008 ) found no significant associations between mental rotation and standardized mathematics performances in similar populations. In middle school-aged children (11–13 years), mental rotation skill was positively associated with geometry knowledge (Battista, 1990 ; Casey et al., 1999 ) and problem-solving (Delgado & Prieto, 2004 ; Hegarty & Kozhevnikov, 1999 ). Studies of high school students and adults have indicated that mental rotation is associated with increased accuracy on mental arithmetic problems (Geary et al., 2000 ; Kyttälä & Lehto, 2008 ; Reuhkala, 2001 ).

Behavioral and imaging evidence suggests that mental rotation tasks invoke visuospatial representations that correspond to object rotation in the physical world (Carpenter et al., 1999 ; Shepard & Metzler, 1971 ). This process develops from 3 to 5 years of age with large individual differences (Estes, 1998 ) and shows varying performance across individuals irrespective of other intelligence measures (Borst et al., 2011 ). Several studies have also demonstrated significant gender differences, with males typically outperforming females (e.g., Voyer et al., 1995 ). However, this gap may be decreasing across generations (Richardson, 1994 ), suggesting it is due at least in part to sociocultural factors such as educational experiences rather than exclusively based on genetic factors. Historically, three-dimensional mental rotation ability has fallen under the spatial visualization skill, while two-dimensional mental rotation occasionally falls under a separate spatial relations skill (e.g., Carroll, 1993 ; Lohman, 1979 ). Thus, mental rotation measures often include either three-dimensional or two-dimensional stimuli rather than a mixture of both.

Three-Dimensional Mental Rotation Tasks

In one of the earliest studies of three-dimensional mental rotation, Shepard and Metzler ( 1971 ) presented participants with pictures of pairs of objects and asked them to answer as quickly as possible whether the two objects were the same or different, regardless of differences in orientation. The stimuli showed objects that were either the same, differing in orientation, or mirror images of those objects. This design provided a nice control since the mirror images had comparable visual complexity but could not be rotated to match the original. Results revealed a positive linear association between reaction time and the angular difference in the orientation of objects. In combination with participant post-interviews, this finding illustrated that in order to make an accurate comparison between the object and the answer questions, participants first imagined the object as rotated into the same orientation as the target object and that participants perceived the two-dimensional pictures as three-dimensional objects in order to complete the imagined rotation. Additional studies have replicated these findings over the last four decades (Uttal et al., 2013 ). Shepard and Metzler-type stimuli have been used in many different instruments, including the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test: Rotations (Guay, 1976 ) and the Mental Rotation Test (see Fig.  2 B; Vandenberg & Kuse, 1978 ). However, recent studies have shown that some items on the Mental Rotation Test can be solved using analytic strategies such as global-shape strategy to eliminate answer choices rather than relying on mental rotation strategies (Hegarty, 2018 ).

One common critique of the Shepard and Metzler-type stimuli is that the classic cube configurations’ complex design is not appropriate for younger populations, leading to few mental rotation studies on this population. Studies have shown that children under 5 years of age have severe difficulties solving standard mental rotation tasks, with children between the ages of 5 and 9 solving such tasks at chance (Frick et al., 2014a , 2014b ). To combat this, studies with pre-school age children often lower task demands by reducing the number of answer choices, removing mirrored and incongruent stimuli, and using exclusively images of two-dimensional objects (Krüger, 2018 ; Krüger et al., 2013 ). In response, some scholars have begun developing appropriate three-dimensional mental rotation instruments for elementary school students, such as the Rotated Colour Cube Test (Lütke & Lange-Küttner, 2015 ). In this instrument, participants are presented with a stimulus consisting of a single cube with different colored sides and are asked to identify an identical cube that has been rotated. However, studies on both three-dimensional and two-dimensional rotation have found that cognitive load depends more on the stimulus angle orientation than the object’s complexity or dimensionality (Cooper, 1975 ; Jolicoeur et al., 1985 ).

Two-Dimensional Mental Rotation Tasks

To measure two-dimensional mental rotation, tasks for all populations feature similar stimuli. These tasks, often referred to as spatial relations or speeded rotation tasks, typically involve single-step mental rotation (Carroll, 1993 ). One common instrument for two-dimensional mental rotation is the Card Rotation Test (Ekstrom et al., 1976 ). This instrument presents an initial figure and asks participants to select the rotated but not reflected items. Importantly, these tasks can be modified for various populations (Krüger et al., 2013 ). One standardized instrument for pre-school and early primary school-age children, the Picture Rotation Test, demonstrates how easily these two-dimensional stimuli can be modified (Quaiser-Pohl, 2003 ).

This section aims to provide an updated review of the various ways in which spatial ability has been historically measured and critically evaluates these assessment tools. As the majority of these measures were designed based on specific-factor structures outlined in the “Specific-Factor Structures” section, we chose to organize our discussion by grouping assessments based on the specific factor it was intended to capture. We also decided to focus on the spatial sub-components that have been suggested to be linked to mathematical thinking, including spatial orientation, spatial visualization, and mental rotation. Ultimately, we found that although there are many spatial measures that researchers can choose from, there is a need for additional measures that address gaps in population and include more than one spatial subcomponent. Additionally, there is a critical need for spatial assessments that can be used in contexts outside of controlled laboratory and one-on-one settings to more deeply understand the complex connections between spatial ability and mathematics education in more authentic learning settings such as classrooms.

A Guiding Framework

We contend that the decisions made regarding the choice of spatial subdivisions, analytical frameworks, and spatial measures will impact both the results and interpretations of findings from studies on the nature of mathematical reasoning in controlled studies. One way these decisions affect the outcomes of a study is that they may change the specific spatial ability sub-components that reliably predict mathematics performance. This is because some factors of spatial ability have been shown to be more strongly associated with certain sub-domains of mathematics than with others (Delgado & Prieto, 2004 ; Schenck & Nathan, 2020 ), but it is unclear how generalizable these findings are as students may use a variety of spatial and non-spatial strategies. Additionally, some models and classifications of spatial ability, such as Uttal et al.’s ( 2013 ) classification and the unitary model of spatial ability, currently do not have validated instruments. Thus, selecting a spatial skills instrument poorly suited to the mathematical skills or population under investigation may fail to show a suitable predictive value. This can lead to an overall weaker model of the dependent variable and lead the research team to conclude that spatial reasoning overall is not relevant to the domain of mathematical reasoning interest. These limitations are often not discussed in the publications we reviewed and, perhaps, may not even be realized by many education researchers. However, as noted, it can be difficult for education researchers to select an appropriate framework among the many alternatives that match their specific domains of study.

Due to the various spatial taxonomies and the assumptions and design decisions needed for choosing the accompanying analytical frameworks, we assert that it is beneficial for most education researchers who do not identify as spatial cognition researchers to avoid attempts to create a specific, universal taxonomy of spatial ability. The evidence of the ways individuals interact with spatial information through the various spatial subcomponents may be based on a particular scholar's perspective of spatial ability, which should inform their choices of spatial taxonomies and analytical frameworks and measures based on their goals.

To help education researchers who may be unfamiliar with the vast literature on spatial ability navigate this large and potentially confusing landscape in service of their study objectives, we have designed a guide in the form of a flowchart that enables them to match spatial taxonomies to analytic frameworks (Fig.  4 ). Our guide, understandably, does not include every possible spatial taxonomy or study aim. Instead, it offers a helpful starting point for incorporating spatial skills into an investigation of mathematical reasoning by focusing on how researchers can draw on specific factor taxonomies and current validated measures of spatial ability in controlled studies.

Flowchart for selecting the appropriate spatial taxonomy and analytic framework for one’s investigation

The first question in the flowchart, Q1, asks researchers to decide how spatial ability will be used in their investigation: either as a covariate or as the main variable of interest. If spatial ability is a covariate, the most appropriate taxonomy would be the unitary model to capture the many possible ways participants could utilize spatial thinking during mathematical reasoning. However, as mentioned in the above section, this model has no validated measure. Thus, we recommend researchers select several measures that cover a variety of specific spatial subcomponents, or a measure designed to test more than one spatial subcomponent, such as the Spatial Reasoning Instrument (Ramful et al., 2017 ). We would then suggest using an analytical framework with a single composite score across multiple tasks to combat issues such as task-related biases (Moreu & Weibels, 2021 ).

If spatial ability is the main variable of interest, answering Q2 in the flowchart directs the researcher to consider whether they are interested in investigating the role of spatial ability as a general concept or as one or more specific sub-components. For example, suppose the researcher is interested in understanding links between spatial ability and a specific mathematic domain. In that case, we recommend using the unitary model of spatial ability and following the recommendations outlined above for using spatial ability as a covariate. For example, Casey et al. ( 2015 ) found that children’s early spatial skills were long-term predictors of later math reasoning skills. In their analysis, the authors identified two key spatial skills, mental rotation, and spatial visualization, that previous work by Mix and Cheng ( 2012 ) found to be highly associated with mathematics performance. To measure these constructs, Casey and colleagues administered three spatial tasks to participants: a spatial visualization measure, a 2-D mental rotation measure, and a 3-D mental rotation measure. The authors were interested in the impact of overall spatial ability on analytical math reasoning and in partially replicating previous findings rather than whether these two factors impacted mathematics performance. Thus, they combined these three spatial scores into a single composite score.

For investigations centering around one or more specific spatial sub-components, we recommend novice researchers use sub-components from specific factor taxonomies (e.g., mental rotation, spatial visualization, spatial orientation). Specific-factor taxonomies are used in a variety of lines of research, including mathematics education. Studies exploring the association between spatial ability and mathematics often focus on a particular sub-factor. For example, some studies have focused on the association between mental rotation and numerical representations (e.g., Rutherford et al., 2018 ; Thompson et al., 2013 ), while others have focused on spatial orientation and mathematical problem solving (e.g., Tartre, 1990 ). Similarly, scholars investigating spatial training efficacy often use spatial tasks based on a single factor or a set of factors as pre- and post-test measures and in intervention designs (e.g., Bruce & Hawes, 2015 ; Gilligan et al., 2019 ; Lowrie et al., 2019 ; Mix et al., 2021 ).

The third question in the flowchart, Q3, asks researchers to select whether their investigation will focus on one particular spatial sub-component or several to provide guidance for analytic frames. In new studies, the sub-components of interest may be selected based on prior studies for confirmatory analyses or on a theoretical basis for exploratory studies. If only a single spatial sub-component is of interest to the investigation, we suggest an analytic approach that includes a single score from one task. If multiple spatial sub-components are relevant to the investigation, we recommend using a single score from one task for each sub-component of interest.

Task selection, the final step in the flow chart, will depend on practical considerations such as which spatial sub-components are relevant, population age, and time constraints. Though thousands of spatial tasks are available, the tasks listed in Table  1 , which also identifies corresponding broad and specific spatial sub-components, can be a useful starting point for designing a study. We recommend that researchers acknowledge that students may solve mathematical problems in various spatial and non-spatial ways and, thus, their results may not generalize to all students or all mathematical tasks and domains. We also remind researchers that the majority of the measures described in the “Choosing Spatial Tasks in Mathematics Education Research” section are designed as psychometric instruments for use in tightly controlled studies. The guidance above is not intended for studies that involve investigating spatial ability in classrooms or other in situ contexts.

Conclusions and Lingering Questions

Researchers largely agree that spatial ability is essential for mathematical reasoning and success in STEM fields (National Research Council, 2006 ). The two goals of this review were, first, to summarize the relevant spatial ability literature, including the various factor structures and measures, in an attempt to more clearly understand the elements of spatial ability that may relate most closely to mathematics education; and second, to provide recommendations for education researchers and practitioners for selecting appropriate theoretical taxonomies, analytical frameworks, and specific instruments for measuring, interpreting, and improving spatial reasoning for mathematics education. Our review exposed a wide array of spatial taxonomies and analytical frameworks developed by spatial ability scholars for understanding and measuring spatial reasoning. However, this review shows no convergence on a definition of spatial ability or agreement regarding its sub-components, no universally accepted set of standardized measures to assess spatial skills, and, most importantly, no consensus on the nature of the link between mathematical reasoning and spatial ability. Thus, this review exposes several challenges to understanding the relationship between spatial skills and performance in mathematics. One is that the connections between mathematical reasoning and spatial skills, while supported, are complicated by the divergent descriptions of spatial taxonomies and analytical frameworks, the sheer volume of spatial measures one encounters as a potential consumer, and a lack of a universally accepted means of mapping spatial measures to mathematical reasoning processes. These challenges should be seen as the responsibility of the educational psychology research communities. The lack of progress on these issues impedes progress in designing effective spatial skills interventions for improving mathematics thinking and learning based on clear causal principles, selecting appropriate metrics for documenting change, and for analyzing and interpreting student outcome data.

Our primary contribution in the context of these challenges is to provide a guide, well situated in the research literature, for navigating and selecting among the various major spatial taxonomies and validated instruments for assessing spatial skills for use in mathematics education research and instructional design. In order to anchor our recommendations, we first summarized much of the history and major findings of spatial ability research as it relates to education (“Selecting a Spatial Taxonomy” section). In this summary, we identified three major types of spatial taxonomies: specific, broad, and unitary, and provided recommendations for associated analytical frameworks. We then discussed the plethora of spatial ability tasks that investigators and educators must navigate (“Choosing Spatial Tasks in Mathematics Education Research” section). To make the landscape more tractable, we divided these tasks into three categories shown to be relevant to mathematics education — spatial orientation, mental rotation, and non-rotational spatial visualization (see Table  1 ) — and mapped these tasks to their intended populations. We acknowledge that researchers and educators often select spatial tasks and analytic frameworks for practical rather than theoretical reasons, which can undermine the validity of their own research and assessment efforts. To provide educators with a stronger evidence-based foundation, we then offered a guiding framework (“A Guiding Framework” section) in the form of a flowchart to assist investigators in selecting appropriate spatial taxonomies and analytic frameworks as a precursor to making well-suited task sections to meet their particular needs. A guide of this sort provides some of the best steps forward to utilizing the existing resources for understanding and improving education through the lens of spatial abilities. We focused on providing a tool to guide the decision-making of investigators seeking to relate spatial skills with mathematics performance based on the existing resources, empirical findings, and the currently dominant theoretical frameworks.

Several limitations remain, however. One is that the vast majority of published studies administered spatial skills assessments using paper-and-pencil instruments. In recent years, testing has moved online, posing new challenges regarding the applicability and reliability of past instruments and findings. Updating these assessments will naturally take time until research using online instruments and new immersive technologies catches up (see Uttal et al., 2024 , for discussion). A second limitation is that studies investigating the associations between spatial ability and mathematics have often focused on a particular spatial ability or particular mathematical skill. There are many unknowns about which spatial abilities map to which areas of mathematics performance. This limitation can only be addressed through careful, systematic, large-scale studies. A third limitation is that many of the instruments in the published literature were developed for and tested on adult populations. This greatly limits their applicability to school-aged populations. Again, this limitation can only be addressed through more research that extends this work across a broader developmental range. Fourth, many spatial ability instruments reported in the literature include tasks that may be solved using various strategies, some that are non-spatial, thus calling into question their construct validity of whether they measure the specific spatial skills they claim to measure. For example, some tasks in assessments, such as the Paper Folding Test may be effectively solved through non-spatial methods such as logic or counting rather than pure spatial visualization. Thus, there is a pressing need for process-level data, such as immediate retrospective reports and eye tracking (cf. Just & Carpenter, 1985 ), to accurately describe the various psychological processes involved and how they vary by age, individual differences, and assessment context. A fifth limitation relates to the 2 × 2 classification system using intrinsic and extrinsic information along one dimension and static and dynamic tasks along the other (Newcombe & Shipley, 2015 ; Uttal et al., 2013 ). In mapping existing tasks to this system, it became clear that there is a need for more development of extrinsic-static tasks and instruments. We found no studies investigating the link between mathematical reasoning and extrinsic-static spatial abilities, perhaps because of the lack of appropriate assessments. The sixth, and arguably greatest limitation is that scholarly research on spatial ability still lacks a convergent taxonomy and offers no clear picture as to which aspects of spatial thinking are most relevant to STEM thinking and learning. More research is needed to test additional models of spatial ability, such as the unitary model, and to expand spatial ability assessment tools to capture the complex and multifaceted nature of spatial thinking needed in mathematics education environments.

The objectives of this paper were to provide researchers with an updated review of spatial ability and its measures and to provide a guide for researchers new to spatial cognition to help navigate this vast literature when making study design decisions. Overall, research to understand the structure of spatial ability more deeply is at a crossroads. Spatial ability is demonstrably relevant for the development of mathematics reasoning and offers a malleable factor that may have a profound impact on the design of future educational interventions and assessments. Synthesizing these lines of research highlighted several areas that remain unexplored and in need of future research and development. STEM education and workforce development remain essential for scientific and economic advancements, and spatial skills are an important aspect of success and retention in technical fields. Thus, it is critical to further understand the connections between spatial and mathematical abilities as ways to increase our understanding of the science of learning and inform the design of future curricular interventions that transfer skills for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Amalric, M., & Dehaene, S. (2016). Origins of the brain networks for advanced mathematics in expert mathematicians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113 (18), 4909–4917. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1603205113

Article   Google Scholar  

Atit, K., Power, J. R., Pigott, T., Lee, J., Geer, E. A., Uttal, D. H., Ganley, C. M., & Sorby, S. A. (2022). Examining the relations between spatial skills and mathematical performance: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29 , 699–720. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-02012-w

Atit, K., Uttal, D. H., & Stieff, M. (2020). Situating space: Using a discipline-focused lens to examine spatial thinking skills. Cognitive Research: Principle and Implications, 5 (19), 1–16.

Google Scholar  

Bates, K. E., Gilligan-Lee, K., & Farran, E. K. (2021). Reimagining mathematics: The role of mental imagery in explaining mathematical calculation skills in childhood. Mind, Brain, and Education, 15 (2), 189–198.

Battista, M. T. (1990). Spatial visualization and gender differences in high school geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21 (1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.2307/749456

Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 843–908). Information Age Publishing.

Battista, M.T., Frazee, L. M., & Winer, M. L. (2018). Analyzing the relation between spatial and geometric reasoning for elementary and middle school students. In K. S. Mix & M. T. Battista (Eds.), Visualizing Mathematics. Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 195 – 228). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98767-5_10

Boonen, A. J. H., van der Schoot, M., van Wesel, F., de Vries, M. H., & Jolles, J. (2013). What underlies successful world problem solving? A path analysis in sixth grade students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38 , 271–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.05.001

Borst, G., Ganis, G., Thompson, W. L., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2011). Representations in mental imagery and working memory: Evidence from different types of visual masks. Memory & Cognition, 40 (2), 204–217. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0143-7

Bruce, C. D., & Hawes, Z. (2015). The role of 2D and 3D mental rotation in mathematics for young children: What is it? Why does it matter? And what can we do about it? ZDM, 47 (3), 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0637-4

Buckley, J., Seery, N., & Canty, D. (2018). A heuristic framework of spatial ability: A review and synthesis of spatial factor literature to support its translation into STEM education. Educational Psychology Review, 30 , 947–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9432z

Buckley, J., Seery, N., & Canty, D. (2019). Investigating the use of spatial reasoning strategies in geometric problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29 , 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9446-3

Burte, H., Gardony, A. L., Hutton, A., & Taylor, H. A. (2017). Think3d!: Improving mathematical learning through embodied spatial training. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2 (13), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0052-9

Burte, H., Gardony, A. L., Hutton, A., & Taylor, H. A. (2019). Knowing when to fold ‘em: Problem attributes and strategy differences in the Paper Folding Test. Personality and Individual Differences, 146 , 171–181.

Burte, H., Gardony, A. L., Hutton, A., & Taylor, H. A. (2019). Make-A-Dice test: Assessing the intersection of mathematical and spatial thinking. Behavior Research Methods, 51 (2), 602–638. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01192-z

Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., Keller, T. A., Eddy, W., & Thulborn, K. (1999). Graded functional activation in the visuospatial system with the amount of task demand. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11 (1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892999563210

Carr, M., Steiner, H. H., Kyser, B., & Biddlecomb, B. (2008). A comparison of predictors of early emerging gender differences in mathematics competency. Learning and Individual Differences, 18 (1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.04.005

Carroll, J. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge University Press . https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571312

Case, R., Okamoto, Y., Griffin, S., McKeough, A., Bleiker, C., Henderson, B., Stephenson, K. M., Siegler, R. S., & Keating, D. P. (1996). The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children’s thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61 (1/2), i–295. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166077

Casey, B. M., Nuttall, R. L., & Pezaris, E. (1999). Evidence in support of a model that predicts how biological and environmental factors interact to influence spatial skills. Developmental Psychology, 35 (5), 1237–1247. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.5.1237

Casey, B. M., Pezaris, E., Fineman, B., Pollock, A., Demers, L., & Dearing, E. (2015). A longitudinal analysis of early spatial skills compared to arithmetic and verbal skills as predictors of fifth-grade girls’ math reasoning. Learning and Individual Differences, 40 , 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.03.028

Cheng, Y. L., & Mix, K. S. (2014). Spatial training improves children’s mathematics ability. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15 (1), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2012.725186

Cohen, C. A., & Hegarty, M. (2012). Inferring cross sections of 3D objects: A new spatial thinking test. Learning and Individual Differences, 22 (6), 868–874. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601788

College Entrance Examination Board (CEEB). (1939).  Special aptitude test in spatial relations . College Entrance Examination Board, New York.

Cooper, L. A. (1975). Mental rotation of random two-dimensional shapes. Cognitive Psychology, 7 (1), 20–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90003-1

Cooper, L. A., & Mumaw, R. J. (1985).Spatial aptitude. In R. F. Dillman (Ed.). Individual differences in cognition (2nd. Ed., pp.67–94). Academic Press.

Cornu, V., Hornung, C., Schiltz, C., & Martin, R. (2017). How do different aspects of spatial skills relate to early arithmetic and number line estimation? Journal of Numerical Cognition, 3 (2), 309–343. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.v3i2.36

da Costa, R., Pompeu, J. E., de Mello, D. D., Moretto, E., Rodrigues, F. Z., Dos Santos, M. D., Nitrini, R., Morganti, F., & Brucki, S. (2018). Two new virtual reality tasks for the assessment of spatial orientation Preliminary results of tolerability, sense of presence and usability. Dementia & Neuropsychologia, 12 (2), 196–204. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-57642018dn12-020013

Davis, B. (2015). Spatial reasoning in the early years: Principles, assertions, and speculations . Routledge.

Delgado, A. R., & Prieto, G. (2004). Cognitive mediators and sex-related differences in mathematics. Intelligence, 32 , 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(03)00061-8

D’Oliveira, T. (2004). Dynamic spatial ability: An exploratory analysis and a confirmatory study. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 14 (1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap1401_2

Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., & Harmon, H. H. (1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests . Educational Testing Service.

Estes, D. (1998). Young children’s awareness of their mental activity The case of mental rotation. Child Development, 69 (5), 1345–1360. https://doi.org/10.2307/1132270

Fennema, E., & Tartre, L. A. (1985). The use of spatial visualization in mathematics by girls and boys. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16 (3), 184–206.

Ferguson, A. M., Maloney, E. A., Fugelsang, J., & Risko, E. F. (2015). On the relation between math and spatial ability: The case of math anxiety. Learning and Individual Differences, 39 , 1–12.

Frick, A., Hanson, M. A., & Newcombe, N. S. (2014). Development of mental rotation in 3- to 5-year-old children. Cognitive Development, 28 (4), 386–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2013.06.002

Frick, A., Möhring, W., & Newcombe, N. S. (2014). Picturing perspectives: Development of perspective-taking abilities in 4- to 8-year-olds. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 , 386. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00386

Gallistel, C. R., & Gelman, R. (1992). Preverbal and verbal counting and computation. Cognition, 44 (1/2), 43–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90050-R

Galton, F. (1879). Generic Images. The Nineteenth Century, 6 (1), 157–169.

Gaughran, W. (2002). Cognitive modelling for engineers. In 2002 American Society for Engineering Education annual conference and exposition . Montréal, Canada: American Society for Engineering Education.

Geary, D. C., Saults, S. J., Liu, F., & Hoard, M. K. (2000). Sex differences in spatial cognition, computational fluency, and arithmetical reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77 (4), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2000.2594

Gilligan, K. A., Thomas, M. S. C., & Farran, E. K. (2019). First demonstration of effective spatial training for near transfer to spatial performance and far transfer to a range of mathematics skills at 8 years. Developmental Science, 23 (4), e12909. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12909

Gottschaldt, K. (1926). Über den Einfluss der Erfahrung auf die Wahrnehmung von Figuren. Psychologische Forschung, 8 , 261–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02411523

Guay, R. B. (1976). Purdue spatial visualization test . Purdue Research Foundation.

Guilford, J. P., & Zimmerman, W. S. (1948). The Guilford-Zimmerman aptitude survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32 (1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063610

Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Beilock, S. L., & Levine, S. C. (2012). The relation between spatial skill and early number knowledge: The role of the linear number line. Developmental Psychology, 48 (5), 1229–1241. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027433

Hambrick, D. Z., Libarkin, J. C., Petcovic, H. L., Baker, K. M., Elkins, J., Callahan, C. N., Turner, S. P., Rench, T. A., & LaDue, N. D. (2012). A test of the circumvention-of-limits hypothesis in scientific problem solving: The case of geological bedrock mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 14 (3), 397–403. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025927

Hannafin, R. D., Truxaw, M. P., Vermillion, J. R., & Liu, Y. (2008). Effects of spatial ability and instructional program on geometry achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 101 (3), 148–157. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.101.3.148-157

Harris, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). A new twist on studying the development of dynamic spatial transformations: Mental paper folding in young children. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7 (1), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12007

Hawes, Z., & Ansari, D. (2020). What explains the relationship between spatial and mathematical skills? A review of the evidence from brain and behavior. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27 , 465–482. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01694-7

Hawes, Z. C. K., Moss, J., Caswell, B., Naqvi, S., & MacKinnon, S. (2017). Enhancing children’s spatial and numerical skills through a dynamic spatial approach to early geometry instruction: Effects of a 32-week intervention. Cognition and Instruction, 35 , 236–264.

Hawes, Z., Moss, J., Caswell, B., & Poliszczuk, D. (2015). Effects of mental rotation training on children’s spatial and mathematics performance: A randomized controlled study. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 4 (3), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2015.05.001

Hegarty, M. (2018). Ability and sex differences in spatial thinking: What does the mental rotation test really measure? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25 , 1212–1219.

Hegarty, M., & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Types of visual-spatial representations and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (4), 684–689. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.684

Hegarty, M., Montello, D. R., Richardson, A. E., Ishikawa, T., & Lovelace, K. (2006). Spatial abilities at different scales: Individual differences in aptitude-test performance and spatial layout learning. Intelligence, 34 (2), 151–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2005.09.005

Hegarty, M., Richardson, A. E., Montello, D. R., Lovelace, K., & Subbiah, I. (2002). Development of a self-report measure of environmental spatial ability. Intelligence, 30 , 425–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00116-2

Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. (2004). A dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities. Intelligence, 32 (2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2003.12.001

Hegarty, M. & Waller, D. A. (2005). Individual differences in spatial abilities. In P. Shah, & A. Miyake (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 121–169). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610448.005

Hubbard, E. M., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Dehaene, S. (2005). Interactions between number and space in parietal cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6 (6), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1684

Huttenlocher, J., & Presson, C. C. (1979). The coding and transformation of spatial information. Cognitive Psychology, 11 (3), 375–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(79)90017-3

Inhelder, B. & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking: From childhood to adolescence. Basic Books. https://doi.org/10.1037/10034-000

Izard, V., Pica, P., Spelke, E. S., & Dehaene, S. (2011). Flexible intuitions of Euclidean geometry in an Amazonian indigene group. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108 (24), 9782–9787. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016686108

Jansen, P. (2009). The dissociation of small-and large-scale spatial abilities in school-age children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 109 (2), 357–361.

Jolicoeur, P., Regehr, S., Smith, L. B. J. P., & Smith, G. N. (1985). Mental rotation of representations of two-dimensional and three-dimensional objects. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 39 (1), 100–129.

Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1985). Cognitive coordinate systems: Accounts of mental rotation and individual differences in spatial ability. Psychological Review, 92 (2), 137.

Karp, S. A., & Konstadt, N. L. (1963). Manual for the children’s embedded figures test . Cognitive Tests.

Kosslyn, S. M., Koenig, O., Barrett, A., Cave, C. B., Tang, J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (1989). Evidence for two types of spatial representations: Hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15 (4), 723–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.15.4.723

Kosslyn, S. M., & Thompson, W. L. (2003). When is early visual cortex activated during visual mental imagery? Psychological Bulletin, 129 (5), 723–746. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.723

Kozhevnikov, M., & Hegarty, M. (2001). A dissociation between object manipulation spatial ability and spatial orientation ability. Memory & Cognition, 29 (5), 745–756. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200477

Kozhevnikov, M., & Thornton, R. (2006). Real-time data display, spatial visualization ability, and learning force and motion concepts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15 (1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-0361-0

Krüger, M. (2018). Mental rotation and the human body: Children’s inflexible use of embodiment mirrors that of adults. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23 (3), 418–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12228

Krüger, M., Kaiser, M., Mahler, K., Bartels, W., & Krist, H. (2013). Analogue mental transformations in 3-year-olds: Introducing a new mental rotation paradigm suitable for young children. Infant and Child Development, 23 , 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1815

Kyritsis, M., & Gulliver, S.R. (2009). Gilford Zimmerman orientation survey: A validation. 2009 7th International Conference on Information, Communications and Signal Processing (ICICS) (pp. 1-4).

Kyttälä, M., & Lehto, J. E. (2008). Some factors underlying mathematical performance: The role of visuospatial working memory and non-verbal intelligence. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23 (1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173141

Laski, E. V., Casey, B. M., Yu, Q., Dulaney, A., Heyman, M., & Dearing, E. (2013). Spatial skills as a predictor of first grade girls’ use of higher level arithmetic strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 23 , 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.08.001

Lee, S. A., Sovrano, V. A., & Spelke, E. S. (2012). Navigation as a source of geometric knowledge: Young children’s use of length, angle, distance, and direction in a reorientation task. Cognition, 1 , 144–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.12.015

Linn, M., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56 (6), 1479–1498. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130467

Lohman, D. F. (1979).  Spatial ability: A review and re-analysis of the correlational literature (Technical Report No. 8). Stanford, CA: Aptitudes Research Project, School of Education, Stanford University.

Lohman, D. F. (1988). Spatial abilities as traits, processes, and knowledge. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 181–248). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lombardi, C. M., Casey, B. M., Pezaris, E., Shadmehr, M., & Jong, M. (2019). Longitudinal analysis of associations between 3-d mental rotation and mathematics reasoning skills during middle school: Across and within genders. Journal of Cognition and Development, 20 (4), 487–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2019.1614592

Lowrie, T., & Logan, T. (2023). Spatial visualization supports students’ math: Mechanisms for spatial transfer. Journal of Intelligence, 11 (6), 127. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11060127

Lowrie, T., Logan, T., & Hegarty, M. (2019). The influence of spatial visualization training on students’ spatial reasoning and mathematics performance. Journal of Cognition and Development, 20 (5), 729–751. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2019.1653298

Lowrie, T., Resnick, I., Harris, D., & Logan, T. (2020). In search of the mechanisms that enable transfer from spatial reasoning to mathematics understanding. Mathematics Educational Research Journal, 32 , 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00336-9

Lütke, N., & Lange-Küttner, C. (2015). Keeping it in three dimensions: Measuring the development of mental rotation in children with the Rotated Colour Cube Test (RCCT). International Journal of Developmental Science, 9 (2), 95–114. https://doi.org/10.3233/DEV-14154

Maeda, Y., & Yoon, S. Y. (2013). A meta-analysis on gender differences in mental rotation ability measured by the Purdue spatial visualization tests: Visualization of rotations (PSVT: R). Educational Psychology Review, 25 (1), 69–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9215-x

Malanchini, M., Rimfeld, K., Shakeshaft, N. G., McMilan, A., Schofield, K. L., Rodic, M., Rossi, V., Kovas, Y., Dale, P. S., Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Plomin, R. (2020). Evidence for a unitary structure of spatial cognition beyond general intelligence. Science of Learning, 5 (1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-0067-8

McGee, M. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin, 86 (5), 889–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.5.889

Michael, W. B., Guilford, J. P., Fruchter, B., & Zimmerman, W. S. (1957). The description of spatial-visualization abilities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 17 , 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316445701700202

Mix, K. S., & Cheng, Y. L. (2012). The relation between space and math: Developmental and educational implications. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 42 , 197–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-394388-0.00006-x

Mix, K. S., Hambrick, D. Z., Satyam, V. R., Burgoyne, A. P., & Levine, S. C. (2018). The latent structure of spatial skill: A test of the 2 x 2 typology. Cognition, 180 , 268–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.07.012

Mix, K. S., Levine, S. C., Cheng, Y. L., Stockton, J. D., & Bower, C. (2021). Effects of spatial training on mathematics in first and sixth grade children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113 (2), 304–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000494

Mix, K. S., Levine, S. C., Cheng, Y. L., Young, C., Hambrick, D. Z., Ping, R., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2016). Separate but correlated: The latent structure of space and mathematics across development. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145 (9), 1206–1227. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000182

Moreau, D., & Wiebels, K. (2021). Assessing change in intervention research: The benefits of composite outcomes. Advances in Methods and Practice in Psychological Science, 4 (1), 2515245920931930. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920931930

Newcombe, N. S. (2013). Seeing relationships: Using spatial thinking to teach science, mathematics, and social studies. American Educator, 37 , 26–40.

Newcombe, N. S., Ratliff, K. R., Shallcross, W. L., & Twyman, A. D. (2009). Young children’s use of features to reorient is more than just associative: Further evidence against a modular view of spatial processing. Developmental Science, 13 (1), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00877.x

Newcombe, N. S. & Shipley, T. F. (2015). Thinking about spatial thinking: new typology, new assignments. In J. S. Gero (Ed), Studying Visual and Spatial Reasoning for Design Creativity (pp. 179–192). Springer, Dordrecht . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9297-4_10

Okamoto, Y., Kotsopoulos, D., McGarvey, L., & Hallowell, D. (2015). The development of spatial reasoning in young children. In B. Davis (Ed.), Spatial reasoning in the early years: Principles, assertions, and speculations (pp. 25–38). Routledge.

Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Witkin, H. A. (1971). Group embedded figure test . Consulting Psychologists Press.

Oostermeijer, M., Boonen, A. J. H., & Jolles, J. (2014). The relation between children’s constructive play activities, spatial ability, and mathematical work problem-solving performance: A mediation analysis in sixth-grade students. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 , 782. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00782

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1956). The child’s conception of space. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Potter, L. E. (1995). Small-scale versus large-scale spatial reasoning: Educational implications for children who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 89 (2), 142–152.

National Research Council. (2006). Learning to think spatially . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11019

Quaiser-Pohl, C. (2003). The mental cutting test “Schnitte” and the Picture Rotation Test – Two new measures to assess spatial ability. International Journal of Testing, 3 (3), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327574IJT0303_2

Ramful, A., Ho, S. Y., & Lowrie, T. (2015). Visual and analytical strategies in spatial visualisation: Perspectives from bilateral symmetry and reflection. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 27 , 443–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-015-0144-0

Ramful, A., Lowrie, T., & Logan, T. (2017). Measurement of spatial ability: Construction and validation of the Spatial Reasoning Instrument for Middle School Students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35 (7), 709–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916659207

Reuhkala, M. (2001). Mathematical skills in ninth-graders: Relationship with visuo-spatial abilities and working memory. Educational Psychology, 21 (4), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410120090786

Richardson, J. T. E. (1994). Gender differences in mental rotation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78 (2), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1994.78.2.435

Rimfeld, K., Shakeshaft, N. G., Malanchini, M., Rodic, M., Selzam, S., Schofield, K., Dale, P. S., Kovas, Y., & Plomin, R. (2017). Phenotypic and genetic evidence for a unifactorial structure of spatial abilities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114 (10), 2777–2782. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607883114

Rutherford, T., Karamarkovich, S. M., & Lee, D. S. (2018). Is the spatial/math connection unique? Associations between mental rotation and elementary mathematics and English achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 62 , 180–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.01.014

Schenck, K. E., Kim, D., Swart, M. I., & Nathan, M. J. (2022, April). With no universal consensus, spatial system perspective affects model fitting and interpretation for mathematics . [Paper Presentation]. American Educational Research Association Conference, San Diego, CA.

Schenck, K. E. & Nathan, M. J. (2020, April). Connecting mathematics, spatial ability, and spatial anxiety . [Paper Presentation]. American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, CA.

Schneider, J., & McGrew, K. (2012). The Cattell–Horn–Carroll model of intelligence. In D. Flanagan & P. Harrison (Eds .), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed., pp. 99–144). Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916651360

Schultz, K. (1991). The contribution of solution strategy to spatial performance. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45 (4), 474–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084301

Shah, P., & Miyake, A. (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125 (1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.125.1.4

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.604

Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171 (3972), 701–703. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3972.701

Sorby, S. (1999). Developing 3-D spatial visualization skills. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 63 (2), 21–32.

Sorby, S. A. (2009). Educational research in developing 3-D spatial skills for engineering students. International Journal of Science Education, 31 (3), 459–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802595839

Sorby, S., Casey, B., Veurink, N., & Dulaney, A. (2013). The role of spatial training in improving spatial and calculus performance in engineering students. Learning and Individual Differences, 26 , 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.03.010

Sorby, S. A., & Panther, G. C. (2020). Is the key to better PISA math scores improving spatial skills? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32 (2), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00328-9

Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man, their nature and measurement . Macmillan.

Stieff, M. (2007). Mental rotation and diagrammatic reasoning in science. Learning and Instruction, 17 (2), 219–234.

Stieff, M., & Uttal, D. (2015). How much can spatial training improve STEM achievement? Educational Psychology Review, 27 (4), 607–615.

Tam, Y. P., Wong, T. T., & Chan, W. W. L. (2019). The relation between spatial skills and mathematical abilities: The mediating role of mental number line representation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 56 , 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.10.007

Tartre, L. A. (1990). Spatial orientation skill and mathematical problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21 (3), 216–229.

Thompson, J. M., Nurek, H. C., Moeller, K., & Kardosh, R. C. (2013). The link between mental rotation ability and basic numerical representations. Acta Psychologica, 144 , 324–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.05.009

Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities . Chicago University Press.

Thurstone, L. L. (1950). Some primary abilities in visual thinking. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 94 (6), 517–521.

Tufte, E. R. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information (2nd ed.). Graphics Press.

Tversky, B. (2019). Transforming thought. In Mind in motion (pp. 85 – 106). Basic Books.

Uttal, D. H., & Cohen, C. A. (2012). Spatial thinking and STEM education: When, why, and how? In B. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 57, pp. 147–181). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394293-7.00004-2

Uttal, D. H., McKee, K., Simms, N., Hegarty, M., & Newcombe, N. S. (2024). How can we best assess spatial skills? Practical and conceptual challenges. Journal of Intelligence, 12 (1), 8.

Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139 (2), 352–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028446

Vandenberg, S. G., & Kuse, A. R. (1978). Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47 , 599–604. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1978.47.2.599

Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N. S., Filipowicz, A. T., & Chang, A. (2014). Deconstructing building blocks: Preschoolers’ spatial assembly performance relates to early mathematical skills. Child Development, 85 (3), 1062–1076. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12165

Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117 (2), 250–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.250

Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (4), 817. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016127

Walsh, V. (2003). A theory of magnitude: Common cortical metrics of time, space, and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7 , 483–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.002

Wang, L., Cohen, A. S., & Carr, M. (2014). Spatial ability at two scales of representation: A meta-analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 36 , 140–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.10.006

Weisberg, S. M., Schinazi, V. R., Newcombe, N. S., Shipley, T. F., & Epstein, R. A. (2014). Variations in cognitive maps: Understanding individual differences in navigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40 (3), 669–682. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035261

Witkin, H. A. (1950). Individual differences in ease of perception of embedded figures. Journal of Personality, 19 , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1950.tb01084.x

Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47 (1), 1–64. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543047001001

Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). A manual for the embedded figures test. Consulting Psychologist Press . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79948-3_1361

Wolfgang, C., Stannard, L., & Jones, I. (2003). Advanced constructional play with LEGOs among preschoolers as a predictor of later school achievement in mathematics. Early Child Development and Care, 173 (5), 467–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443032000088212

Wraga, M., Creem, S. H., & Profitt, D. R. (2000). Updating displays after imagined object and viewer rotations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26 (1), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.1.151

Xie, F., Zhang, L., Chen, X., & Xin, Z. (2020). Is spatial ability related to mathematical ability: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32 , 113–155.

Yilmaz, B. (2009). On the development and measurement of spatial ability. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 1 (2), 1–14.

Young, C. J., Levine, S. C., & Mix, K. S. (2018). The connection between spatial and mathematical ability across development. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 775. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00755

Young, C. J., Levine, S. C., & Mix, K. S. (2018). What processes underlie the relation between spatial skill and mathematics? In K. S. Mix & M. T. Battista (Eds.), Visualizing Mathematics. Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 195–228). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98767-5_10

Zacks, J. M., Mires, J., Tversky, B., & Hazeltine, E. (2000). Mental spatial transformations of objects and perspective. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 2 , 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015584100204

Zacks, J., Rypma, B., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Tversky, B., & Glover, G. H. (1999). Imagined transformations of bodies: An fMRI investigation. Neuropsychologia, 37 (9), 1029–1040. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(99)00012-3

Zhang, X., & Lin, D. (2015). Pathways to arithmetic: The role of visual-spatial and language skills in written arithmetic, arithmetic word problems, and nonsymbolic arithmetic. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41 , 188–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.01.005

Zhong, J. Y., & Kozhevnikov, M. (2016). Relating allocentric and egocentric survey-based representations to the self-reported use of a navigation strategy of egocentric spatial updating. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46 , 154–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.04.0

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Martha W. Alibali and Dr. Edward M. Hubbard for their extensive and valuable feedback as part of the preliminary examination committee. We also thank Dr. Michael I. Swart for his feedback on initial and subsequent drafts and for lending graphic design knowledge. Last, we thank Dr. Mary Hegarty and Monica Mendoza for their feedback on the initial drafts of this work.

Open access funding provided by SCELC, Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium No funding, grants, or other support was received for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Teaching and Learning, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, USA

Kelsey E. Schenck

Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

Mitchell J. Nathan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

This work is primarily based on Kelsey E. Schenck’s preliminary examination thesis working under her advisor, Mitchell J. Nathan. The idea for the article was Kelsey E. Schenck’s under the guidance of Mitchell J. Nathan. Kelsey E. Schenck performed the initial literature search and drafted the initial work. Mitchell J. Nathan critically revised and contributed to subsequent drafts.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelsey E. Schenck .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Schenck, K.E., Nathan, M.J. Navigating Spatial Ability for Mathematics Education: a Review and Roadmap. Educ Psychol Rev 36 , 90 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09935-5

Download citation

Accepted : 05 August 2024

Published : 17 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09935-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Spatial Ability
• Mathematics Education
• Student Cognition
• Factor Analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

More From Forbes

The power of effective communication in leadership.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Chief Growth Officer of Tynker , a leading K-12 edtech platform that has helped more than 100 million kids learn to code.

Whether running a small startup or an entire nation, great leaders must leverage effective communication skills. Consider some of the leaders who reshaped history—Churchill, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr. and even Napoleon. All of them were masters of relatable language.

Good communication skills are also crucial for leaders in the corporate world for inspiring both stakeholders outside the company and uniting the internal team into one cohesive group. Strong relationships can boost company resilience and success while increasing talent retention rates.

Effective Communication: Two-Way Vs. One-Way

Influential leaders practice two-way communication, motivating and building solid relationships with team members.​​

As a leader, it is crucial to understand the importance of both one-way and two-way communication. Sometimes, you will have to communicate to your team decisions that have already been made and directives that must be followed.​​ Regardless of the situation, allowing your team members to voice their disagreements about decisions is key—because understanding their concerns is important. However, framing your communication clearly and addressing any concerns before they are presented can lead to faster acceptance.

Here are six characteristics of effective communication in leadership.

Active Listening

Good leaders are active listeners. They don't just listen to the comments and feedback from their team; they process, retain, discuss and, if possible, incorporate it into the decision-making process. When team members feel like they are heard, it builds morale.

​​Leaders should also encourage and facilitate this trait within the team to build better relationships among team members. Open-door policies, communication with individual team members, positive reactions to feedback and constructive debates can help you lead by example.

Team building activities like having discussions on common issues using a chess clock (where each member gets the same time to talk) can drive home the importance of listening.

Individual Communication Styles

​​It would be best if you introduced multiple modes of communication to accommodate your team members. Some people ​​prefer face-to-face interactions, while others might find it more comfortable chatting on Slack. Not everyone will be comfortable presenting to the whole team, but they might communicate their ideas well with an infographic or a shared presentation where people can comment in real time.

​​As a leader, you ​must​​​ understand that each team member's perspective of effective communication differs and might need the right channel to express themselves adequately.

Introducing and encouraging multiple ​communication channels​​​ can inspire the team to share ideas and exchange information more frequently.

Conciseness And Clarity

​​Don't let your communication drown in a sea of words. More information can just as easily confuse the listener as ​insufficient​​​ information. This is valid for all forms of communication. That's why TEDx Talks are designed to be 18 minutes long at most —to keep the audience's attention. ​ ​​

​​Short emails, memos and concise instructions can communicate your point better than large blocks of text. Clarity and conciseness can help team members absorb the necessary information and remain on the same page. This creates cohesion and motivates the team to pursue goals together. ​​​

For example, if a CFO writes a memo to the entire team ​​with finance-specific lingo, it likely won't be as effective in conveying its point to designers, IT, or anyone else on the team not familiar with the finance language. Leadership communication should be clear to all team members. Amazon's six-page memos that serve as a replacement for traditional PowerPoint presentations were introduced to achieve more clarification in communication.

Relatability

​​The key to building strong relationships and inspiring teams through communication is to humanize the information you wish to convey and make it more relatable. This is a common practice in education, where complex ideas are broken down and communicated through simple, relatable examples.

You don't have to break down everything in layperson's terms, and you can make your communication relatable by using references from your industry that all team members would understand. They will appreciate your effort and desire to help them understand what is being communicated.

Transparency

​​Transparency is a crucial characteristic of leadership communication, especially if your goal is to establish trust with your team members. If your employees don't know the organization's purpose or do not understand its values, you will have a hard time inspiring them.

​​ Buffer is a good example of a company employing transparent communication; the leadership team publicly shares information like salaries, time off and specific financial metrics. ​​

An organization's leaders being transparent with its employees about their intentions, company goals, financials and other aspects can foster trust and ​​lead to better relationships and team unity.

Consistency

​​Finally, leaders must be consistent in their communication. If the values, ideas and missions they communicate differ ​occasionally​​​ and among team members, it will lead to distrust against the leader. Inconsistent communication also damages team cohesion. ​ ​​

If some team members receive constant feedback from the leader and other members merely receive any communication when there is an issue, they may feel left out.

Achieving Collaboration Through Clear Communication

In the realm of leadership, effective communication is essential for building healthy relationships, both personal and professional. Leaders who communicate well can inspire team members and achieve shared goals.

Forbes Business Development Council is an invitation-only community for sales and biz dev executives. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

• Share full article

Advertisement

Subscriber-only Newsletter

Jessica Grose

What teachers told me about a.i. in school.

By Jessica Grose

Opinion Writer

Leila Wheless, a North Carolina teacher who has been an educator since 1991, tried to keep “an open heart” about using artificial intelligence in her middle school English and language arts classroom. She reviewed the guidance of her state’s generative A.I. “ recommendations and considerations ” for public schools. But the results of her students’ A.I. use were dispiriting.

“For one particular assignment related to the novel ‘Persepolis,’ I had students research prophets,” Wheless explained, because the main character fantasizes about being a prophet. But, she told me via email, internet searches that incorporated A.I.:

Gave students jewels such as “the Christian prophet Moses got chocolate stains out of T-shirts” — I guess rather than Moses got water out of a rock(?). And let me tell you, eighth graders wrote that down as their response. They did not come up to me and ask, “Is that correct? Moses is known for getting chocolate stains out of T-shirts?” They simply do not have the background knowledge or indeed the intellectual stamina to question unlikely responses.

After I wrote a series in the spring about tech use in K-12 classrooms , I asked teachers about their experiences with A.I. because its ubiquity is fairly new and educators are just starting to figure out how to grapple with it. I spoke with middle school, high school and college instructors, and my overall takeaway is that while there are a few real benefits to using A.I. in schools — it can be useful in speeding up rote tasks like adding citations to essays and doing basic coding — the drawbacks are significant.

The biggest issue isn’t just that students might use it to cheat — students have been trying to cheat forever — or that they might wind up with absurdly wrong answers, like confusing Moses with Mr. Clean. The thornier problem is that when students rely on a generative A.I. tool like ChatGPT to outsource brainstorming and writing, they may be losing the ability to think critically and to overcome frustration with tasks that don’t come easily to them.

Sarah Martin, who teaches high school English in California, wrote to me saying, “Cheating by copying from A.I. is rampant, particularly among my disaffected seniors who are just waiting until graduation.”

When I followed up with her over the phone, she said that it’s getting more and more difficult to catch A.I. use because a savvier user will recognize absurdities and hallucinations and go back over what a chatbot spits out to make it read more as if the user wrote it herself. But what troubles Martin more than some students’ shrewd academic dishonesty is “that there’s just no grit that’s instilled in them. There’s no sense of ‘Yes, you’re going to struggle, but you’re going to feel good at the end of it.’”

She said that the amount of time her students are inclined to work on something that challenges them has become much shorter over the seven years she’s been teaching. There was a time, she said, when a typical student would wrestle with a concept for days before getting it. But now, if that student doesn’t understand something within minutes, he’s more likely to give up on his own brain power and look for an alternative, whether it’s a chatbot or asking a friend for help.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Programming for education and new curriculum

Published by

Vishv sanghadia

In today’s fast-changing digital world, adding  programming  and  coding  to school is key. It helps shape the future workforce. With  technology  changing jobs and industries, we need to teach our students the right  digital skills .

This new school  curriculum  shows how important these skills are. By adding  programming  and  coding , students learn not just tech skills. They also get better at solving problems, being creative, and innovating. These skills are vital for their future jobs.

Key Takeaways

• Programming  and  coding  are changing  education  and the new  curriculum
• Using  technology  in class is key to getting students ready for the future
• Teaching students  digital skills , thinking computationally, and solving problems
• Boosting  creativity  and  innovation  through programming and coding
• Updating the  curriculum  to fit the needs of today’s digital age

Empowering Students with Coding Skills

In today’s world, teaching students how to code is key. These skills boost their  problem-solving  and  creativity . They are vital for doing well in the 21st century.

Computational Thinking for Problem-Solving

Learning to code helps students think computationally. This skill lets them break down tough problems, spot patterns, and find solutions. It’s useful in many areas, like science, math, design, and business.

Fostering Creativity and Innovation

Coding is more than just writing code. It makes students think creatively and try new things. They can turn their ideas into digital projects. This helps them be creative and innovative, skills that employers want.

By focusing on  coding skills ,  computational thinking , and  STEM education , we can help students become adaptable and innovative. They’ll be ready to succeed in the digital world.

Integrating Education with Technology

In today’s world, combining  education  and technology is key to modern learning. Classrooms are changing, thanks to  education technology . This includes everything from interactive  digital learning  platforms to the latest  classroom technology . These tools are making learning better.

Using technology in class helps students stay engaged. Tools like interactive whiteboards and learning apps make learning fun and interactive. This can lead to better  teaching methods  and students remembering more.

Digital learning  platforms also let students learn at their own pace. They can find lots of educational resources easily. This makes learning more personal and helps students of all types in the classroom.

As  education technology  grows, teachers can make learning more engaging and effective. By using these new tools, schools can encourage  innovation , creativity, and teamwork. This prepares students for the digital world ahead.

“Technology is just a tool. In terms of getting the kids working together and motivating them, the teacher is the most important.”

Adding programming and coding to school is key to getting students ready for the digital future. It helps them think creatively, solve problems, and adapt. These skills are crucial for dealing with the fast-changing tech world.

Now, making  education  and technology work together is a must. The new school plans need to keep up with the job market’s needs and the growing role of  digital skills . By giving students the right tools and mindset, we prepare them for a world driven by technology.

Putting programming and coding into education is a big step towards a better future for our students and society. As we use technology more in schools, we’re raising a generation that’s adaptable, innovative, and tech-savvy. They will lead us into a brighter, more prosperous future.

What is the importance of integrating programming and coding into the education curriculum?

Adding programming and coding to school curriculums is key for the digital age. These skills help students think computationally, solve problems, be creative, and innovate. These are vital for doing well in today’s job market.

How can technology enhance the learning experience in the classroom?

Technology makes learning in class better. It uses digital tools, new  teaching methods , and classroom gadgets. These help keep students engaged, make learning interactive, and make school more fun and effective.

What are the benefits of developing computational thinking skills through coding?

Coding helps students learn to solve problems step by step. They learn to break down complex issues into simpler parts and find solutions. This skill is important in many areas, like science, engineering, business, and the arts.

How can coding and programming foster creativity and innovation in students?

Coding lets students be creative by making and testing new apps and solutions. It encourages them to think outside the box, try new things, and come up with innovative ideas. These are great skills for the future.

What are the key digital skills that students need to acquire for the future job market?

Students need more than just  coding skills . They should also learn about data analysis, digital communication, cybersecurity, and making digital content. These skills will be very important as jobs change and technology gets more complex.

Share this:

Leave a comment cancel reply, recent posts, fostering a conducive learning environment at academic excellence academy, the learning journey : a students’s perspective, quote of the week.

"People ask me what I do in the winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring." ~ Rogers Hornsby

A passionate baseball fan blog celebrating America’s favorite pastime.

• Uncategorized

Designed with VS

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar