Advertisement

What Innovations Have We Already Lost?: The Importance of Identifying and Developing Spatial Talent

  • Jonathan WaiEmail author
  • Harrison J. Kell
Chapter

Abstract

In a famous talent search by Lewis Terman, there were two young boys who were not identified as gifted but would go on to win the Nobel Prize in physics. Their names were William Shockley and Luis Alvarez and the scientific area in which they achieved their fame was arguably heavily visual-spatial in nature. Why were two Nobel winners missed? Likely because Terman had used the highly verbal Stanford-Binet, which did not include a good spatial measure. Many standardized tests in schools today lack spatial measures, and this means many spatially talented students are not being identified, and their talent is therefore not fully encouraged and developed. This chapter first reviews over 50 years of data showing that spatial ability in addition to math and verbal ability has predictive power in STEM domains. Next, the issue of spatial training and females in STEM are discussed. Then, how these findings and other research can be translated into education practice is presented. Finally, a discussion of the broader societal implications of neglecting spatially talented students will be laid out. For example, how many innovations have we already lost because we have not adequately identified and developed the talent of some of our most promising innovators?

Keywords

Spatial talent Spatial ability Spatial reasoning STEM Gender 

References

  1. Ackerman, P. L. (2014). Nonsense, common sense, and science of expert performance: Talent and individual differences. Intelligence, 45, 6–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Applebaum, H. (1992). The concept of work: Ancient, medieval, and modern. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  3. Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (Eds.). (2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students. Iowa City: University of Iowa.Google Scholar
  4. Austin, J. T., & Hanisch, K. A. (1990). Occupational attainment as a function of abilities and interests: A longitudinal analysis using Project Talent data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Binet, A. (1892). Mental imagery. Fortnightly Review, 52, 95–104.Google Scholar
  6. Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905). New methods for the diagnosis of the intellectual level of subnormals. L'Année Psychologique, 12, 191–244.Google Scholar
  7. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2010). The mathematics of sex: How biology and society conspire to limit talented women and girls. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cowen, T. (2011). The great stagnation. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
  10. Diderot, D. (1992). Art. (J. H. Mason & R. Wokler, Trans.). In J. H. Mason & R. Wokler (Eds.), Diderot: Political writings (pp. 5–6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1751).Google Scholar
  11. Flanagan, J. C., Dailey, J. T., Shaycoft, M. F., Gorman, W. A., Orr, D. B., & Goldberg, I. (1962). Design for a study of American youth. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  12. Galton, F. (1880). I.—Statistics of mental imagery. Mind, 19, 301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gebelhoff, R. (2015). On its way to Pluto, New Horizons became a tool for education like no other probe. The Washington Post. Retrieved July, 2015, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/07/17/on-its-way-to-pluto-new-horizons-became-a-tool-for-education-like-no-other-probe/.
  14. Goddard, H. H. (1910). Four hundred feeble-minded children classified by the Binet method. Pedagogical Seminary, 17, 387–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gohm, C. L., Humphreys, L. G., & Yao, G. (1998). Underachievement among spatially gifted students. American Education Research Journal, 35, 515–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heckman, J. J., & Kautz, T. (2012). Hard evidence on soft skills. Labour Economics, 19, 451–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hegarty, M. (2004). Mechanical reasoning by mental simulation. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holahan, C. K., & Sears, R. R. (1995). The gifted group in later maturity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Huebner, J. (2005). A possible declining trend for worldwide innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72, 980–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Humphreys, L. G., & Lubinski, D. (1996). Brief history and psychological significance of assessing spatial visualization. In C. P. Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 116–140). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Humphreys, L. G., Lubinski, D., & Yao, G. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Holt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kell, H. J., & Lubinski, L. (2013). Spatial ability: A neglected talent in educational and occupational settings. Roeper Review, 34, 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kell, H. J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2013). Creativity and technical innovation: Spatial ability’s unique role. Psychological Science, 24, 1831–1836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knox, H. A. (1914). A scale, based on the work at Ellis Island, for estimating mental defect. Journal of the American Medical Association, 62, 741–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lohman, D. F. (1994a). Spatially gifted, verbally, inconvenienced. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent development: Vol. 2. Proceedings from the 1993 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace national research symposium on talent development (pp. 251–264). Dayton: Ohio Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lohman, D. F. (1994b). Spatial ability. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 1000–1007). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Lohman, D. F. (1996). Spatial ability and G. In I. Dennis & P. Tapsfield (Eds.), Human abilities: Their nature and assessment (pp. 97–116). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Lohman, D. F. (2005). The role of nonverbal ability tests in identifying academically gifted students: An aptitude perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 111–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lubinski, D. (2010). Spatial ability and STEM: A sleeping giant for talent identification and development. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 344–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meehl, P. E., & Rosen, A. (1955). Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 194–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49, 270–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller, D. I., & Halpern, D. F. (2013). Can spatial training improve long-term outcomes for gifted STEM undergraduates? Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller, D. I., Wai, J., & Uttal, D. H. (under review). Beyond the leaky pipeline: Creating diverse paths into STEM.Google Scholar
  36. Morrill Act of 1862, 7 U.S.C. § 304 (2014).Google Scholar
  37. National Research Council. (2015). Measuring human capabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  38. New Horizons. (2015). NASA’s mission to Pluto. Retrieved July, 2015, from http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/
  39. Newcombe, N. S. (2010). Picture this: Increasing math and science learning by improving spatial thinking. American Educator, 34, 29–43.Google Scholar
  40. Pinter, R., & Paterson, D. G. (1917). A scale of performance tests. New York: D. Appleton & Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  42. Richardson, J. T. (2003). Howard Andrew Knox and the origins of performance testing on Ellis Island, 1912–1916. History of Psychology, 6, 143–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sechrest, L. (1963). Incremental validity: A recommendation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 23, 153–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shea, D. L., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Importance of assessing spatial ability in intellectually talented young adolescents: A 20-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 604–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shepard, R. N. (1978). Externalization of mental images and the act of creation. In B. Randhawa & W. Coffman (Eds.), Visual learning, thinking, and communication (pp. 133–190). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  46. Shipstead, Z., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2012). Is working memory training effective? Psychological Bulletin, 138, 628–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Simonton, D. K. (1991). Emergence and realization of genius: The lives and works of 120 classical composers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 829–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Simonton, D. K. (2003). Expertise, competence, and creative ability: The perplexing complexities. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The psychology of abilities, competencies, and expertise (pp. 213–239). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Simonton, D. K. (2012). Taking the U.S. Patent Office criteria seriously: A quantitative three- criterion creativity definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith, I. M. (1964). Spatial ability: Its educational and social significance. London: University of London Press.Google Scholar
  51. Sorby, S. A., & Baartmans, B. J. (1996). A course for the development of 3-D spatial visualization skills. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 60, 13–20.Google Scholar
  52. Sorby, S. A., & Baartmans, B. J. (2000). The development and assessment of a course for enhancing the 3-D spatial visualization skills of first year engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 89, 301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Super, D. E., & Bachrach, P. B. (1957). Scientific careers and vocational development theory. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  54. Sylvester, R. H. (1913). The form board test. Psychological Monographs, 15, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Terman, L. M. (1925). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children (Genetic Studies of Genius, Vol. 1). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Thiel, P. (2015). Founders fund manifesto. Retrieved July, 2015, from http://www.foundersfund.com/the-future/#Google Scholar
  58. Thorndike, R. M., & Lohman, D. F. (1990). A century of ability testing. Chicago: Riverside.Google Scholar
  59. Uttal, D. H., Miller, D. I., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013a). Exploring and enhancing spatial thinking: Links to achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 367–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013b). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 352–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vance, A. (2015). Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the quest for a fantastic future. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
  62. Vernon, P. E. (1950). The structure of human abilities. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  63. Vernon, P. E. (1989). The nature-nurture problem in creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 93–110). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Viteles, M. S. (1932). Industrial psychology. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  65. Wai, J. (2011). Why don’t we value spatial intelligence? Getting Smart. Retrieved July, 2015, from http://gettingsmart.com/2011/12/why-dont-we-value-spatial-intelligence/
  66. Wai, J. (2012). Three ways schools ignore our most creative thinkers. Business Insider. Retrieved July, 2015, from http://www.businessinsider.com/why-high-spatial-intelligence-gets-ignored-2012-8
  67. Wai, J. (2013). Why we need to value students’ spatial creativity. KQED MindShift. Retrieved July, 2015, from http://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2013/07/31/why-we-need-to-value-spatial-creativity/.
  68. Wai, J. (2015a). By neglecting spatial intelligence, how many Elon Musks have we missed? Quartz. Retrieved July, 2015, from http://qz.com/447137/by-neglecting-spatial-intelligence-how-many-elon-musks-have-we-missed/
  69. Wai, J. (2015b). The stubborn pattern of academic aptitude by college major: 1946 to 2014. Quartz. Retrieved July, 2015, from http://qz.com/334926/your-college-major-is-a-pretty-good-indication-of-how-smart-you-are/
  70. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009a). 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
  71. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009b). Aligning promise and passion: Best practices for educating intellectually talented youth. In J. S. Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, K. S. McMillen, R. D. Eckert, & C. A. Little (Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (2nd ed., pp. 693–716). Mansfield Center: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar
  72. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010). Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 860–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wai, J., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Helping disadvantaged and spatially talented students fulfill their potential: Related and neglected national resources. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3,122–128.Google Scholar
  74. 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
  75. West, T. G. (1991). In the mind’s eye. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  76. Whitney, E. (1990). Paradise restored: The mechanical arts from Antiquity through the thirteenth century. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 80(Part I), 1–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wise, L. L., McLaughlin, D. H., & Steel, L. (1979). The project TALENT data bank. Palo Alto: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  78. Wundt, W. (1896). Outlines of psychology (C. H. Judd, Trans.). Leipzig: Entgelmann.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Duke University Talent Identification ProgramDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Educational Testing ServicePrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations