Instructional Science

, Volume 42, Issue 6, pp 995–1012 | Cite as

Effectiveness of visual and verbal prompts in training visuospatial processing skills in school age children

  • Ellahe Chabani
  • Bernhard HommelEmail author


Recent decades have witnessed a growing interest in intervention-based assessment to promote and enhance children’s learning. In this study, we explored the potential effect of an experimental visual–spatial intervention procedure and possible training benefits of two prompting modalities: one group received training with verbal and visual prompts, a second group training with visual prompts only, while a third, control group did not receive any training. The two training methods led to significant improvements of performance in visuospatial tasks as compared to control group, and they did so about equally well. Our findings provide evidence for the efficiency and benefits of interventions targeting visuospatial processing skills. The success of such interventions does not seem to be bounded by age or gender, and it seems that visual cues are particularly effective.


Visuospatial Problem solving Individual differences Verbal prompting Visual prompting 


  1. Allen, G. L. (2003). Functional families of spatial abilities: Poor relations and rich prospects. International Journal of Testing, 3(3), 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archer, A., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Efficient and effective teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Assel, M. A., Landry, S. H., Swank, P., Smith, K. E., & Steelman, L. M. (2003). Precursors to mathematical skills: Examining the roles of visual–spatial skills, executive processes, and parenting factors. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohning, G., & Althouse, J. K. (1997). Using tangrams to teach geometry to young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 24(4), 239–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carr, N. (2008). The big switch: Rewiring the world, from Edison to Google. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  8. Carr, N. (2010). The shallows: What the internet is doing to our brains. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  9. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheng, Y. L., & Mix, K. S. (2012). Spatial training improves children’s mathematics ability. Journal of Cognition and Development,. doi: 10.1080/15248372.2012.725186.Google Scholar
  11. Cortiella, C. (2011). The state of learning disabilities. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from
  12. D’Oliveira, T. (2004). Dynamic spatial ability: An exploratory analysis and a confirmatory study. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 14, 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dehaene, S., Izard, V., Pica, P., & Spelke, E. (2006). Core knowledge of geometry in an Amazonian indigene group. Science, 311, 381–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dye, M. W. G., Hauser, P. C., & Bavelier, D. (2008). Visual skills and cross-modal plasticity in deaf readers: Possible implications for acquiring meaning from print. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1145, 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eliot, J., & Smith, I. M. (1983). An international directory of spatial tests. Windsor Berkshire: NFER-Nelson.Google Scholar
  16. Flanagan, D. P., & Kaufman, A. S. (2004). Essentials of WISC-IV assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Ford, B. E. (2003). Tangrams: The magnificent seven piece puzzle. Vallejo, CA: Tandora’s Box Press.Google Scholar
  18. Foster, T. E. (2007). The legend of the tangram prince. Charleston, SC: BookSurge.Google Scholar
  19. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Gardner, M. F. (1996). Test of visual perceptual skills (n-m) revised. Hydesville, CA: Psychological and Educational.Google Scholar
  22. Grigorenko, E. L. (2009). Dynamic assessment and response to intervention: Two sides of one coin. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Styles of thinking, abilities, and academic performance. Exceptional Children, 63(3), 295–312.Google Scholar
  24. Grissmer, D., Grimm, K., Aiyer, S., Murrah, W., & Steele, J. (2010). Fine motor skills and early comprehension of the world: Two new school readiness indicators. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 1008–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Halpern, D. F. (2012). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (4th ed.). New York: Psychology.Google Scholar
  26. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haywood, H., & Lidz, C. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 717–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hegarty, M., Keehner, M., Cohen, C., Montello, D. R., & Lippa, Y. (2007). The role of spatial cognition in medicine: Applications for selecting and training professionals. In G. Allen (Ed.), Applied spatial cognition (pp. 285–315). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. (2004). A dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities. Intelligence, 32, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. (2005). Individual differences in spatial abilities. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), Handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 121–169). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holmes, J., Adams, J. W., & Hamilton, C. (2008). The relationship between visuo-spatial sketchpad capacity and children’s mathematical skills. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20, 272–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jeltova, I., Birney, D., Fredine, N., Jarvin, L., Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2007). Dynamic assessment as a process-oriented assessment in educational settings. Advances in Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaufman, S. B. (2007). Sex differences in mental rotation and spatial visualization ability: Can they be accounted for by differences in working memory capacity? Intelligence, 35, 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee, J., Lee, J. O., & Collins, C. (2009). Enhancing children’s spatial sense using tangrams. Childhood Education, 86(2), 92–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterisation of gender differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479–1498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Lovett, A., & Forbus, K. (2010). Shape is like space: Modeling shape representation as a set of qualitative spatial relations. Guilford Publications. Proceedings of the AAAI spring symposium on cognitive shape processing. Palo Alto. Retrieved from
  40. Lubinski, D. (2010). Spatial ability and STEM: A sleeping giant for talent identification and development. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 344–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mathewson, J. H. (1999). Visual–spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators. Science Education, 83, 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, R. C. (2006). Problem solving. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 287–304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Moreno, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory: More food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 135–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. National Council of Teacher’s Mathematics. (2003). Developing geometry understandings and spatial skills through puzzle like problems with tangrams: Tangram challenges. Retrieved from
  47. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2010). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: NCTM. Retrieved from
  48. National Research Council. (2006). Learning to think spatially: GIS as support system in K-12 curriculum. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  49. Newcombe, N. S., & Learmonth, A. E. (2005). Development of spatial competence. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), Handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 213–256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Olina, Z., Reiser, R., Huang, X., Lim, J., & Park, S. (2006). Problem format and presentation sequence: Effects on learning and mental effort among U.S. high school students. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Paas, F. G. W. C., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Passolunghi, M. C., & Mammuarella, I. (2010). Spatial and visual working memory ability in children with difficulties in arithmetic word problem solving. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 944–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Paul, R. (2007). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence (3rd ed.). St. Louis: Mosby.Google Scholar
  55. Peter, M., Gluck, J., & Beiglbock, W. (2010). Map understanding as a developmental marker in childhood. Journal of Individual Differences, 31, 64–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Piaget, J. (1977). In H. E. Gruber & J.J. Vonèche (Eds.), The essential Piaget. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  57. Rasmussen, C., & Bisanz, J. (2005). Representation and working memory in early arithmetic. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 91, 137–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998, updated 2003). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.Google Scholar
  59. Resing, W. C. M., & Elliott, J. G. (2011). Dynamic testing with tangible electronics: Measuring children’s change in strategy use with a series completion task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 579–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Resing, W. C. M., Steijn, W. M. P., Xenidou-Dervou, I., Stevenson, C. E., & Elliott, J. G. (2011). Dynamic testing with an electronic console: Do children listen to the computer? Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 10(2), 178–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schnotz, W., & Kurschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 469–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Slocum, J., Botermans, J., Gebhardt, D., Ma, M., Ma, X., Raizer, H., et al. (2003). The tangram book. New York: Sterling Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  64. Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (in press). Learning versus performance. In D. S. Dunn (Ed.), Oxford bibliographies online: Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
  65. Sophian, C. (2000). Perceptions of proportionality in young children: Matching spatial ratios. Cognition, 75, 145–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Contemporary theories of intelligence. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 23–46). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  68. Sutton, K. J., & Williams, A. P. (2007). Spatial cognition and its implications for design. Hong Kong: International Association of Societies of Design Research.Google Scholar
  69. Terlecki, M. S., Newcombe, N. S., & Little, M. (2008). Durable and generalized effects of spatial experience on mental rotation: Gender differences in growth patterns. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 996–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tzuriel, D., & Egozi, G. (2010). Gender differences in spatial ability of young children. Child Development, 81, 1417–1430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., et al. (2012). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin,. doi: 10.1037/a0028446.Google Scholar
  72. Van Garderen, D., & Montague, M. (2003). Visual–spatial representation, mathematical problem solving, and students of varying abilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 246–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Van Hiele, P. M. (1983). Structure and insight. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  74. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over fifty years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 817–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Webb, R. M., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Spatial ability: A neglected dimension in talent searches for intellectually precocious youth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 397–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Willcutt, E. G., Doyle, A. E., Nigg, J. T., Faraone, S. V., & Pennington, B. F. (2005). Validity of the executive function theory of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A meta-analytic review. Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1336–1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cognitive Psychology, Institute of PsychologyLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Leiden Institute for Brain and CognitionLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations