Spatial and creative abilities are important for innovations in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields, but talents are rarely developed from these abilities by schools, including among gifted children and adolescents who have a high potential to become STEM innovators. This article provides an overview of each ability and makes the case for their connection. Example activities that involve spatial and creative abilities are provided. These activities not only can incorporate state standards but also can provide the challenge necessary to develop spatial and creative talents in gifted learners. Activity examples are provided in the following categories: arts curriculum embedded within STEM subjects, problem solving focused curriculum, computer programming, and academic competitions.
CoxonS. V. (2008). STEMbotics: Using Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats and LEGO NXT Robotics to understand STEM systems. Availablefrom http://stevecoxon.com
5.
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
6.
CoxonS. V. (2010). FIRST LEGO League, the sport of the mind. Teaching for High Potential, Winter, 6-8.
7.
CoxonS. V. (2012). The malleability of spatial ability under treatment of a FIRST LEGO League-based robotics simulation. The Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(3), 291-316.
8.
DavisG. A.RimmS. B. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
9.
de BonoE. (1999). Six thinking hats. Suffolk, UK: First Back Bay.
10.
ErezR. (2004). Freedom and creativity: An approach to science education for excellent students and its realization in the Israel Arts and Science Academy’s curriculum. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15, 133-140.
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.
15.
GijbelsD.DochyF.Van den BosscheP.SegersM. (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75, 27-61.
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.
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.
19.
LimK. Y. T. (2005). Augmenting spatial intelligence in the geography classroom. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 14, 187-199.
20.
LiuL. L.UttalD. H.MarulisL. M.NewcombeN. S. (2008). 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.
MannR. L. (2006). Effective teaching strategies for gifted/learning disabled students with spatial strengths. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 112-121.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Committee on science learning, kindergarten through eighth grade. In DuschlR. A.SchweingruberH. A.ShouseA. W. (Eds.), Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (pp. 9-25). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
25.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2008).
OmdalS. N.RichardsM. R. E. (2008). Academic competitions. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 5-13). Waco, TX: Prufrock.
28.
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.
29.
OzturkM. A.DebelakC. (2008). Academic competitions as tools for differentiation in middle school. Gifted Child Today, 31, 47-53.
30.
PiirtoJ. (2004). Understanding creativity. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
31.
PinkD. (2005). A whole new mind. New York, NY: Penguin.
32.
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.
33.
RileyT. L.KarnesF. A. (1998). Demonstrating creativity in the arts through competitions. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 10, 248-251.
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.
38.
SorbyS. (2005). Assessment of a “new and improved” course for the development of 3-d spatial skills. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 69, 6-13.
39.
SternbergR. (1984). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
40.
SuperD. E.BachrachP. B. (1957). Scientific careers and vocational development theory. New York, NY: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
41.
Tallent-RunnelsM. K.Candler-LotvenA. C. (2008). Academic competitions for gifted students: A resource book for teachers and parents (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
42.
TorranceE. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
43.
TreffingerD. J.IsaksenS. G.DorvalK. B. (2006). Creative problem solving: An introduction (4th ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock.
44.
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.
45.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.AveryL. D.HughesC. E.LittleC. A. (2000). An evaluation of the implementation of curriculum innovation: The impact of William and Mary units on schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 244-272.
46.
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.
47.
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.
48.
WebbR. M.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2002). Mathematically facile adolescents with math-science aspirations: New perspectives on their educational and vocational development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 785-794.
