Children’s Object Structure Perspective-Taking: Training and Assessment

  • Billie EilamEmail author
  • Uri Alon


Spatial abilities—required in both academic and everyday information processing—are recommended as an important target for explicit instruction in the K-12 curriculum. However, most school curricula do not address this spatial issue, probably because spatial ability is a general rather than domain-specific skill and also due to debate regarding individuals’ ability to transfer general skills to novel tasks. In particular, little is known about elementary school children’s object structure perspective-taking (OSPT) ability. We developed an age-appropriate OSPT assessment tool and examined differences in OSPT ability between 1st and 4th graders who did or did not receive OSPT training; children’s OSPT ability in relation to 3 object types: detailed everyday objects, contour only, and abstract geometrical target objects; the ability to identify a view seen by an observer and the ability to determine the vantage point from which a given view is seen; and problem-solving involving far transfer and difficult items. Problem-solving strategies and relations between these young children’s OSPT performance and their mathematic achievements were examined to further investigate the possible contribution of spatial ability to STEM learning. Our findings are promising in that a relatively short training effected significantly children’s OSPT ability—a general intellectual skill—calling for the development and introduction of OSPT-relevant K-12 curriculum, possibly using our training program as a model. Such curriculum is relevant in particular for girls, of whom OSPT showed significant correlation with mathematic scores for contoured and geometric objects. Fourth graders performed better than 1st graders, but the latter improved more.


Assessment tool Elementary school Object structure perspective-taking Training Visual-spatial abilities 



The authors thank Dee Ankonina for her editing comments.

Supplementary material

10763_2018_9934_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 15 kb)


  1. Ackermann, E. K. (1996). Perspective-taking and object construction: two keys to learning. Constructionism in practice: designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world, 25–37. Retrieved from
  2. Anderson, J. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Carr, M., Alexeev, N., Wang, L., Barned, N., Horan, E. & Reed, A. (2018). The development of spatial skills in elementary school students. Child Development, 89(2), 446–460. Scholar
  4. Casey, B. M., Lombardi, C. M. P., Pollock, A., Fineman, B. & Pezaris, E. (2017). Girls’ spatial skills and arithmetic strategies in first grade as predictors of fifth-grade analytical math reasoning. Journal of Cognition and Development, 18(5), 530–555. Scholar
  5. Cohen, C. A. & Hegarty, M. (2007). Sources of difficulty in imagining cross sections of 3D objects. 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2007), 179–184.Google Scholar
  6. 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. Scholar
  7. Dimitrov, D. M. & Rumrill, P. D. (2003). Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of change. Work (Reading, Mass.), 20(2), 159–165. Scholar
  8. 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(April), 386. Scholar
  9. Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Ambridge, B. & Wearing, H. (2004). The structure of working memory from 4 to 15 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 177–190. Scholar
  10. Geiser, C., Lehmann, W. & Eid, M. (2006). Separating “rotators” from “nonrotators” in the mental rotations test: A multigroup latent class analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(3), 367–400. Scholar
  11. Granic, I., Lobel, A. & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2014). The benefits of playing video games. The American Psychologist, 69(1), 66–78. Scholar
  12. Gzesh, S. M. & Surber, C. F. (1985). Visual perspective-taking skills in children. Child Development, 56(5), 1204–1213. Scholar
  13. Hallowell, D. A., Okamoto, Y., Romo, L. F. & La Joy, J. R. (2015). First-graders’ spatial-mathematical reasoning about plane and solid shapes and their representations. ZDM, 47(3), 363–375. Scholar
  14. Hegarty, M. (2010). Components of spatial intelligence. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 52(10), 265–297. Scholar
  15. Hegarty, M. (2018). Ability and sex differences in spatial thinking: What does the mental rotation test really measure? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 25(3), 1212–1219. Scholar
  16. Janssen, A. B. & Geiser, C. (2010). On the relationship between solution strategies in two mental rotation tasks. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(5), 473–478. Scholar
  17. 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(1), 123–130. Scholar
  18. Lehmann, J., Quaiser-Pohl, C. & Jansen, P. (2014). Correlation of motor skill, mental rotation, and working memory in 3- to 6-year-old children. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11(5), 560–573. Scholar
  19. Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, J., Taylor, A. & Langrock, A. (1999). Early sex differences in spatial skill. Developmental Psychology, 35(4), 940–949. Scholar
  20. 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 Sciences, 9(2), 95–114. Scholar
  21. Meneghetti, C., Cardillo, R., Mammarella, I. C., Caviola, S. & Borella, E. (2017). The role of practice and strategy in mental rotation training: Transfer and maintenance effects. Psychological Research, 81(2), 415–431. Scholar
  22. Mix, K. S. & Cheng, Y. (2012). The relation between space and math: developmental and educational implications. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 42, 197–243. Scholar
  23. National Research Council (2006). Learning to think spatially: GIS as a support system in the K-12 curriculum. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences Retrieved from to Think Spatially.pdf.Google Scholar
  24. Neuburger, S., Jansen, P., Heil, M. & Quaiser-Pohl, C. (2011). Gender differences in pre-adolescents’ mental-rotation performance: Do they depend on grade and stimulus type? Personality and Individual Differences, 50(8), 1238–1242. Scholar
  25. Newcombe, N. & Frick, A. (2010). Early education for spatial intelligence: Why, what, and how. Mind, Brain, and Education, 4(3), 102–111. Scholar
  26. Newcombe, N. S. & Shipley, T. (2015). Thinking about spatial thinking: New typology, new assessments. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Studying visual and spatial reasoning for design creativity (pp. 179–192). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer. Scholar
  27. Pittalis, M. & Christou, C. (2010). Types of reasoning in 3D geometry thinking and their relation with spatial ability. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(2), 191–212. Scholar
  28. Qureshi, A. W., Apperly, I. A. & Samson, D. (2010). Executive function is necessary for perspective selection, not Level-1 visual perspective calculation: Evidence from a dual-task study of adults. Cognition, 117(2), 230–236. Scholar
  29. Ratliff, K. R., McGinnis, C. R. & Levinson, S. C. (2010). The development and assessment of cross-sectioning ability in young children. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 15, pp. 2816–2821). Retrieved from
  30. Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). Three options are optimal for multiple-choice items: A Meta- analysis of 80 years of research. Educational Measurement: Issues & Practice, 24(2), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saleem, W., Belyaev, A., Wang, D. & Seidel, H.-P. (2011). On visual complexity of 3D shapes. Computers & Graphics, 35(3), 580–585. Scholar
  32. Stieff, M., Dixon, B. L., Ryu, M., Kumi, B. C. & Hegarty, M. (2014). Strategy training eliminates sex differences in spatial problem solving in a stem domain. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 390–402. Scholar
  33. Stieff, M., Ryu, M., Dixon, B. & Hegarty, M. (2012). The role of spatial ability and strategy preference for spatial problem solving in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(7), 854–859. Scholar
  34. Tarampi, M. R., Heydari, N. & Hegarty, M. (2016). A tale of two types of perspective taking: Sex differences in spatial ability. Psychological Science, 27(11), 1507–1516. Scholar
  35. Taylor, H. & Hutton, A. (2013). Think3d!: Training spatial thinking fundamental to STEM education. Cognition and Instruction, 31(July 2015), 434–455. Scholar
  36. Titze, C., Jansen, P. & Heil, M. (2010). Mental rotation performance and the effect of gender in fourth graders and adults. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7, 432–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tosto, M. G., Hanscombe, K. B., Haworth, C. M. A., Davis, O. S. P., Petrill, S. A., Dale, P. S., & Kovas, Y. (2014). Why do spatial abilities predict mathematical performance? Developmental Science, 17(3), 462–470. Scholar
  38. Tzuriel, D. & Egozi, G. (2010). Gender differences in spatial ability of young children: The effects of training and processing strategies. Child Development, 81(5), 1417–1430. Scholar
  39. 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. Scholar
  40. Vander Heyden, K. M., Huizinga, M., Raijmakers, M. E. J. & Jolles, J. (2017). Children’s representations of another person’s spatial perspective: Different strategies for different viewpoints? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 153, 57–73. Scholar
  41. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., Elia, I., & Robitzsch, A. (2015). ZDM Mathematics Education, 47, 345–362. Scholar
  42. 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), 817–835. Scholar
  43. Wright, R., Thompson, W. L., Ganis, G., Newcombe, N. S. & Kosslyn, S. M. (2008). Training generalized spatial skills. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(4), 763–771. Scholar
  44. Yilmaz, B. (2009). On the development and measurement of spatial ability. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 1(2), 83–96.Google Scholar
  45. Young, C. J., Levine, S. C. & Mix, K. S. (2018). The connection between spatial and mathematical ability across development. Frontiers in Psychology, 9.

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Learning, Instruction, and Teacher Education, Faculty of EducationUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations