Estudio de Impacto Ambiental (EsIA)

Addressing its first aim, this study provides developmental profiles for each of Uttal

et al.'s (2013) spatial sub-domains from 6 to 10 years, showing that performance on

all four spatial sub-domains improves with developmental age. Although not all between group comparisons were significant, for most tasks, other than mental rotation, there were increases in performance until 10 years. For mental rotation, performance plateaued at 8 years. These developmental patterns are consistent with findings from previous studies that explore the development of individual spatial sub- domains (Frick et al., 2013; Frick et al., 2014a). The current study also found subtle differences in the development of extrinsic compared to intrinsic spatial skills. For extrinsic spatial tasks (the Spatial Scaling Task and the Perspective Taking Task), there were no significant differences in performance between consecutive age groups. This suggests a gradual, steady increase in performance accuracy between 6 and 10 years that can best be observed by comparing children across a wide age range. In contrast, for the intrinsic measures (the CEFT and the Mental Rotation Task) there was significantly lower performance at 6 and 7 years compared to 8 years, with large gains in accuracy in the early primary school years and slower development thereafter. This study extends the current understanding of spatial development, as most previous studies are based on children under 8 years (Frick et al., 2013; 2014a).

153

These differing developmental patterns between intrinsic and extrinsic spatial skills are interesting for two reasons. First, they lend support to the intrinsic vs. extrinsic distinction in Uttal et al.’s (2013) model of spatial thinking. The results reported here suggest that these two spatial categories (intrinsic vs. extrinsic) may have differing developmental patterns, which may suggest that they are distinct constructs. This is supported by a recent CFA study by Mix et al. (2018) who also found stronger evidence for the intrinsic vs. extrinsic, compared to the static vs. dynamic distinction of spatial thinking. Second, as outlined further in the next section, some spatial- mathematical relations are age-dependent. A developmental transition in the role of intrinsic tasks, for mathematics, is proposed to occur at approximately 8 years. This rapid development of spatial thinking in the early primary school years may explain the age-dependent associations that are reported between some intrinsic spatial tasks and mathematics (both in this chapter and elsewhere, e.g., Mix et al., 2016). In short, before 8 years there appears to be substantial development of spatial thinking, particularly of intrinsic spatial skills. However, after 8 years, developmental improvement in spatial task performance is smaller and for some tasks such as the Mental Rotation Task, performance levels out.

Addressing the second aim, the findings reported indicate a significant role for spatial skills in predicting mathematical outcomes. For some spatial sub-domains, their role in predicting mathematics was consistent across age groups. Spatial skills explained 12.4% of general mathematics performance with disembedding (intrinsic-static sub- domain) and spatial scaling (extrinsic-static sub-domain) identified as significant predictors. For the ANS task, although spatial skills predicted 8.4% of the variation in performance, spatial scaling (extrinsic-static sub-domain) was the only significant spatial predictor. In contrast, spatial skills explained 12.6%, 5.6% and 8.6% of the variation on the 0-10, 0-100 and 0-1000 blocks of task respectively. Spatial scaling (extrinsic-static sub-domain) was a significant predictor for all three blocks of the Number Line Estimation Task. The study addressed its second aim, to provide evidence that different spatial sub-domains are differentially associated with mathematics outcomes.

154

Addressing its third aim, the findings of this study demonstrate age-dependent effects and indicate that for some spatial skills, their role in predicting mathematics changes through development. A role of mental rotation (intrinsic-dynamic sub- domain) in predicting standardised mathematics outcomes was found at 6 and 7 years only. Furthermore, mental rotation was a significant predictor of 0-10 number line estimation, which was completed at 6 and 7 years only. For the 0-100 and 0-1000 blocks of the Number Line Estimation Task, mental rotation was not a significant predictor for any age groups. These findings are consistent with Mix et al. (2016; 2017) and suggest a transition in the spatial skills that are important for mathematics, which occurs in middle childhood at approximately 7 to 8 years (Mix et al., 2016; 2017). Here, this transition is defined by a reduction in the role of mental rotation (intrinsic-dynamic spatial skills) for mathematics performance. As discussed further in section 3.5.2, successful performance on mental rotation tasks requires mental visualisation. Therefore, these performance patterns may reflect a reduction in the use of mental visualisation strategies in the completion of mathematics tasks at approximately 8 years.

For the 0-1000 Number Line Estimation Task (the most difficult of the three blocks of the Number Line Estimation Task) age-dependent performance patterns were also found. Static tasks including spatial scaling and disembedding were important predictors at 72_{, 8 and 9 years. No significant correlations were reported between}

these spatial skills and 0-1000 number line performance at 10 years. These findings may reflect another developmental shift in the role of spatial skills for mathematics performance. As suggested by Mix et al. (2016; 2017) at 10 years individuals may rely more heavily on verbal or VSWM strategies for mathematics performance, in place of spatial strategies. However, the correlations reported here at for children at 10 years should be interpreted with caution, as they do not control for other predictors of number line performance. Further research is required to confirm these results.

2 _{Children at 6 years were not included in analysis of the 0-1000 Number Line}

155

Taken together, these results support multi-dimensional models of spatial thinking (Buckley, Seery, & Canty, 2018). The four spatial predictors included in this study, measuring each of Uttal et al.’s (2013) four theoretically motivated spatial sub- domains, were found to have varying roles in explaining mathematics outcomes. As outlined in Chapter 2, previous studies of primary school children have typically explored associations between intrinsic-dynamic spatial tasks and mathematics. The results of this study highlight the importance of other spatial sub-domains in explaining mathematics outcomes, particularly spatial scaling (extrinsic-static sub- domain). The failure of some previous studies to find significant spatial-mathematical associations may reflect the limited spatial sub-domains assessed, or the age of the participants tested (Carr et al., 2008).