A stratified random sample of volunteer participants (N = 75) aged 9 to 14 was drawn from 16 public school districts’ gifted programs, including as many females (n = 28) and children from groups traditionally underrepresented in gifted programs (n = 18) as available. Participants were randomly divided into an experimental (n = 38) and a control group (n = 37) for an intervention study. All participants took the Cognitive Abilities Test (Form 6) Verbal Battery and the Project TALENT Spatial Ability Assessments. The experimental group participated in a simulation of the FIRST LEGO League (FLL) competition for 20 hr total over five consecutive days. All participants took the spatial measure again. Experimental males evidenced significant and meaningful gains in measured spatial ability (Cohen’s d = .87). Females did not evidence significant gains in measured spatial ability. This may be due to sampling error, gender differences in prior experience with LEGO, or differences in facets of spatial ability in the treatment or measurements.
American Competitiveness Initiative. (2006). American competitive initiative: Leading the world in innovation. Washington, DC: Domestic Policy Council Office of Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.innovationtaskforce.org/docs/ACI%20booklet.pdf
2.
American Institute for Research. (2011). Project TALENT spatial ability assessments. Washington, DC: Author.
CarrollJ. B. (1994). An alternative, Thurstonian view of intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 195-197.
5.
ChettyR.FriedmanJ. N.HilgerN.SaezE.SchanzenbackD. W.YaganD. (2011). How does your kindergarten classroom affect your earnings? Evidence from Project Star. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, 1593-1660. doi:10.1093/qje/qjr04110.1093/qje/qjr041
6.
CoxonS. V. (2009). Challenging neglected spatially gifted students with FIRST LEGO League. Addendum to leading change in gifted education. Williamsburg, VA: Center for Gifted Education. Retrieved from http://cfge.wm.edu/Documents/FestschriftSupplement.pdf#page=25
7.
CoxonS. V. (2010). FIRST LEGO League, the sport of the mind. Teaching for High Potential, Winter, 6-8.
8.
CoxonS. V. (in press-a). Innovative allies: Spatial and creative abilities. Gifted Child Today.
9.
CoxonS. V. (in press-b). The practical strategies series in gifted education: Serving spatially-able learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock.
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.
14.
GohmC. L.HumphreysL. G.YaoG. (1998). Underachievement among spatially gifted students. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 515-531.
15.
HerrnsteinR. J.MurrayC. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York, NY: Free Press.
16.
HumphreysL. G. (1991). Some unconventional analyses of resemblance coefficients for male and female monozygotic and dizygotic twins. In CicchetteD.GroveW. (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul Everett Meehl (pp. 158-187). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
17.
HumphreysL. G.LubinskiD.YaoG. (1993). Utility of predicting group membership and the role of spatial visualization in becoming an engineer, physical scientist, or artist. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 250-261.
18.
JensenA. R. (1984). Test validity: g versus the specificity doctrine. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 7, 93-118.
19.
Lange-KuttnerC. (2009). Habitual size and projective size: The logic of spatial systems in children’s drawings. Developmental Psychology, 45, 913-927.
20.
LibenL. S. (2009). Giftedness during childhood: The spatial-graphic domain. In HorowitzF. D.SubotnikR. F.MatthewsD. J. (Eds.), The development of giftedness and talent across the life span (pp. 59-74). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
21.
LimK. Y. T. (2005). Augmenting spatial intelligence in the geography classroom. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 14, 187-199.
22.
LiuL. L.UttalD. H.MarulisL. M.NewcombeN. S. (2008, May). Training spatial skills: What works, for whom, why and for how long?Poster presented at the 20th annual meeting of the Association for Psychological Science, Chicago, IL.
LohmanD. F. (1994). Spatially gifted, verbally inconvenienced. In ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.AmbrosonD. L. (Eds.), Talent development: Proceedings from the 1993 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (Vol. 2, pp. 251-264). Dayton, OH: Psychology Press.
25.
LohmanD. F. (2003a). The Woodcock-Johnson III and the Cognitive Abilities Test (Form 6): A concurrent validity study. Iowa City: University of Iowa. Retrieved from http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/dlohman/
26.
LohmanD. F. (2003b). The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children III and the Cognitive Abilities Test (Form 6): Are the general factors the same?Iowa City: University of Iowa. Retrieved from http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/dlohman/
27.
LohmanD. F. (2005). The role of nonverbal ability tests in identifying academically gifted students: An aptitude perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 111-138.
28.
LohmanD. F.HagenE. P. (2001). Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT), Form 6. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
29.
LubinskiD.HumphreysL. G. (1990). Assessing spurious “moderator effects”: Illustrated substantively with the hypothesized (“synergistic”) relation between spatial and mathematical ability. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 385-393.
30.
MannR. L. (2006). Effective teaching strategies for gifted/learning disabled students with spatial strengths. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 112-121.
National Science Board. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
34.
NewcombeN. (2009, April). Improving spatial strengths. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual conference, San Diego, CA.
35.
OnyanchaR. M.DerovM.KinseyB. L. (2009). Improvements in spatial ability as a result of targeted training and computer-aided design software use: Analyses of object geometries and rotation types. Journal of Engineering Education, 98, 157-167.
36.
PetreM.PriceB. (2004). Using robotics to motivate ‘back door’ learning. Education and Information Technologies, 9, 147-158.
37.
PotterC.Van der MerweM.FridjhonP.KaufmanW.DelacourJ.MokoneM. (2009). Three dimensional spatial perception and academic performance in engineering graphics: A longitudinal investigation. South African Journal of Psychology, 39, 109-121.
38.
SandersW. L.HornS. P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) Database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 247-256.
39.
SheaD.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2001). Importance of assessing spatial ability in intellectually talented young adolescents: A 20-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 604-614.
40.
SnowR. E. (1999). Commentary: Expanding the breadth and depth of admissions testing. In MessickS. (Ed.), Assessment in higher education (pp. 133-140). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41.
SorbyS. A. (2005). Assessment of a “new and improved” course for the development of 3-D spatial skills. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 69(3), 6-13.
42.
SorbyS. A. (2009). Educational research in developing 3-D spatial skills for engineering students. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 459-480.
43.
SpenceI.YuJ. J.FengJ.MarshmanJ. (2009). Women match men when learning a spatial skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1097-1103.
44.
SuperD. E.BachrachP. B. (1957). Scientific careers and vocational development theory. New York, NY: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
45.
SwiatekM. A. (2007). The talent search model: Past, present, and future. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 320-329. doi:10.1177/001698620730631810.1177/0016986207306318
46.
TermanL. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
47.
TerrellN. (2007). STEM occupations. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 51, 26-33.
48.
TzurielD.EgoziG. (2010). Gender differences in spatial ability of young children: The effects of training and processing strategies. Child Development, 81, 1417-1430.
49.
UrhahneD.NickS.SchanzeS. (2009). The effect of three-dimensional simulations on the understanding of chemical structures and their properties. Research in Science Education, 39, 495-513.
UttalD. H.FisherJ. A.TaylorH. A. (2006). Words and maps: Developmental changes in mental models of spatial information acquired from descriptions and depictions. Developmental Science, 9, 221-235.
54.
UttalD. H.MeadowN. G.HandL. L.WarrenC.NewcombeN. S. (2012). Training spatial skills: What works, for whom, and for how long? Manuscript under review.
55.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.AveryL.StruckJ.FengA.BrackenB.DtrummundD.StambaughT. (2005). The William and Mary Classroom Observation Scales, Revised (Part 2) Teacher Observation. Williamsburg, VA: The Center for Gifted Education, The College of William & Mary.
56.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.StambaughT. (Eds.). (2007). Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners. Proceedings of the National Leadership Conference on Low-Income Promising Learners. Williamsburg, VA: National Association for Gifted Children and the Center for Gifted Education, College of William & Mary.
57.
VernerI. M. (2004). Robot manipulations: A synergy of visualization, computation and action for spatial instruction. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 213-234.
58.
WaiJ.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 817-835.
59.
WangE.LaCombeJ.RogersC. (2004). Using LEGO bricks to conduct engineering experiments. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.
60.
WebbR. M.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2007). Spatial ability: A neglected dimension in talent searches for intellectually precocious youth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 397-420.
61.
WilliamsD. C.MaY.PrejeanL.FordM. J.LaiG. (2007). Acquisition of physics content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills in a robotics summer camp. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40, 201-216.
