1. Getting Some Space: Using Spatial Language and Spatial Play
to Promote Children’s Spatial Skills
Patricia Donskoy
Professor Marianella Casasola
Cornell Infant Studies Lab
Phone: 516-849-0115 Email:phd38@cornell.edu
Introduction
Quality of language predicts differences in later cognitive and language skills (Pruden,
Levine, & Huttenlocher, 2011). Larger spatial vocabularies are associated with stronger
spatial skills in young children (e.g., Pruden et al., 2011; Szechter & Liben, 2004). For
example, Pruden, Levine, and Huttenlocher (2011) reported that preschool-aged
children’s performance on three spatial tests was predicted by the amount of spatial
language exposure as toddlers.
In the present study, we compared children’s acquisition of spatial language under one of
two learning conditions. Children attending Head Start school in Harlem, NY were given
exposure to spatial language in play activities over five sessions that spanned one month.
The play activities were either constructive play activities (e.g., block building) or non-
constructive play activities (e.g., arts and crafts). We assessed children’s spatial
vocabulary at two time points, prior to the start of the training sessions and several days
following the last training session.
Objective
To examine the impact of learning context in preschool-aged children’s acquisition of
spatial language.
Methods
Participants
• 25 pre-school aged children (M= 4.65, SD=0.55)
• 16 Males and 9 Females
Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two training conditions for 5-6 training
sessions. Conditions were designed to examine the impact of spatial language and
different forms of play compared to each spatial stimulus separately on children’s spatial
skills. Children in the constructive play + language condition were exposed to spatial
language and constructive play activities. Children in the non-constructive play+ language
condition were also exposed to spatial language, but with non-constructive play.
Constructive and non-constructive play tasks were matched closely on time-to-complete
to ensure similar amounts of language and researcher-interaction exposure over the course
of training. Spatial language included:
• Directional words: “up”, “down”, “middle”, “edge”, “above” “next
to”, etc.
• Action words: “flip”, “rotate”, etc.
• Shape names: “circle”, “square”, “octagon”, “hexagon”, etc.
Baseline and Post test Measures
Children were tested on their receptive and expressive spatial language. For the expressive
spatial language task, children were asked to name the spatial relation between a plush
bear and a red pot (e.g., under, on, in). They were also asked to name geometric shapes
(e.g., triangle, rectangle, pentagon). In the receptive spatial language measure, children
were asked to point to a spatial relation or shape depicted in a 2 x 2 array. The percent
correct was calculated for spatial relations and shapes for both the receptive and
expressive task. The same measure was used for the posttest. Sample items are shown in
Figure 1.
Figure 1. On the left is an example of the expressive spatial language task. On the right is a sample item for
the receptive spatial language task. Children were asked to point to one of the shapes (e.g., “Point to the
rectangle”).
Training Tasks
Across training sessions that spanned several weeks children participated in various activities
each lasting 5-15 minutes each. These activities are displayed in Figure 2 for children who
participated in the constructive play condition and Figure 3 for those in the non-constructive
play condition.
Figure 2. Children in the constructive play condition were given experience with 6 different constructive play tasks. They
made a magnet scene across 1 training day, an origami pig and whale across 2 training days, two Lego® structures across 2
training days , Magna-tile® play and shape making across 1 training day, block building on 1 training day, and puzzle play
across 1 training day. Children could complete one or more activities per day.
Figure 3. Children in the non-constructive play condition were given experience with 7 different non-constructive play tasks.
They named magnet shapes (but did not build), completed a pig-face connect the dots, did a shape scavenger hunt, and made
a shape collage across 1 training day, picked out shapes in I Spy® book and played a shape matching memory game across 2
training days. Children could complete one or more activities per day.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Professor Marianella Casasola for overseeing this project and Daniel Suh for collaboration on
task development. I would also like to thank Angelica Gangemi, Emily Hagen, and Tiffany Gou for their assistance
with data collection, coding, and reliability. A thank you goes out to the ABC Graham Head Start Center in Harlem,
NY, its directors and Programs Coordinator Victoria Hoss, teachers, and students who participating in this study and
Zena Saunders for her invaluable assistance with connecting to the ABC Graham Head Start Center and to Annalee X
for her help with the study as well.
Children’s comprehension of shape names, but not their ability to name shapes, differed
significantly across the two conditions, F (1, 23) = 5.20, p < .05, ηp
2 = .18. Children in the
constructive play condition improved their receptive shape vocabulary from baseline (M = .67,
SD = .11) to posttest (M = .79, SD = .16), F (1, 11) = 6.45, p < .05, ηp
2 = .37, whereas those in the
non-constructive play condition did not improve from baseline (M = .69, SD = .17) to posttest (M
= .58, SD = .32), F < 1, ns. This result can be seen in Figure 4.
Figure 4. The difference in percent correct from baseline to posttest on receptive shape comprehension task
(light blue) and expressive shape comprehension task (dark blue). Scores above zero indicate an improvement
in performance from baseline to posttest.
A comparison of the number of children who improved in their comprehension of shape
names from baseline to posttest yielded a significant effect of condition, χ2 (1, N = 25) =
5.94, p < .05. Eleven of twelve children in the constructive play improved on their
receptive shape language whereas only six of the 13 children in the Non-constructive
play condition did so. This result can be seen in Figure 5.
Figure 5. The number of children who improved on receptive shape language (dark purple), compared to the
number of children that did not improve (light purple) in both conditions.
Conclusion
Results
These results show the context in which spatial language is provided has a
significant impact on children’s ability to build their receptive spatial vocabulary. In
particular, incorporating spatial language into child-directed, constructive play
activities may be an especially effective approach to enhancing the acquisition and
expansion of a vocabulary of shape names over time. This result is especially
insightful because across both conditions, children were provided with an equivalent
amount of spatial language exposure and yet, learning was best when embedded into
children’s constructive play.
References
Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, J., Taylor, A., & Langrock, A. (1999). Early sex differences in spatial
skill. Developmental psychology, 35(4), 940.
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.
Pruden, S. M., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (2011). Children’s spatial thinking: Does talk about
the spatial world matter? Developmental Science, 14(6), 1417–1430.
Szechter, L. E., & Liben, L. S. (2004). Parental Guidance in Preschoolers' Understanding of
Spatial‐Graphic Representations. Child Development, 75(3), 869-885.
Results