BackHome
Refresh: OffView Personal Schedule
Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

A Spatial Language Assessment for Preschoolers and its Relationship to Mathematics and Spatial Tasks

Fri, March 22, 10:00 to 11:30am, Hilton Baltimore, Floor: Level 2, Key 1

Integrative Statement

Spatial skills are used to mentally and physically manipulate our environment and are essential for everyday functioning. Children’s spatial skills have strong links to early math skills (Verdine et al., 2017) and future STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) achievement (Wai et al., 2009). Spatial language, or words and phrases used to describe spatial relations and object properties, may provide an important foundation for children’s spatial skill development (Pruden et al., 2011). Nonetheless, spatial terms are difficult to learn; well into preschool, many children have not yet mastered complex spatial prepositions, such as between or front (Johnston & Slobin, 1979). Children from low socioeconomic-status (SES) households may particularly struggle with these terms (Hustead, 1974). However, most research has focused on production of spatial terms. As language comprehension takes away the necessity for a child to recall the correct term from memory, it often proceeds language production. Therefore, examining spatial language comprehension in young children may particularly illuminate children’s lexical development.

Assessments of spatial language comprehension, mathematical skills, and spatial skills were administered to 186 3-year-olds. Mathematical skills were measured with the Woodcock-Johnson-IV Applied Problems Subtest (WJ-IV AP; Schrank et al., 2014) and the Test of Early Mathematics Ability (TEMA-3; Ginsburg & Baroody, 2003). Spatial skills were measured with the 2-D and 3-D trials of the Test of Spatial Assembly (TOSA; Verdine et al., 2014). On the new spatial language comprehension task (adapted from Park & Casasola, 2017), children were shown three photographs featuring a teddy bear and a bucket and asked to select which photograph represented the target spatial relation (Figure 1). The use of a bear and a bucket on each trial served to minimize linguistic difficulty as the only thing that changed across trials was the target preposition.

Though there was notable variability, children got an average of 9.43 out of 14 correct (67.4%; SD = 2.67; Figure 2). High-SES children (M = 10.34; SD=2.47) performed significantly better than low-SES children (M = 8.48, SD = 2.47; p < .001) (with SES defined by maternal education; Hoff, 2013). Additionally, females (M = .84; SD = 2.58) scored significantly higher than males (M = 8.87, SD = 2.69; p = .024).

Analyses of the association between spatial language comprehension and mathematics performance (controlling for expressive language) revealed a significant positive relation between children’s spatial comprehension and their score on mathematics assessments WJ-IV AP r(174) = .474; TEMA r(174) = .442; p < .001). Moreover, a significant but weaker relation was found between children’s spatial comprehension and their spatial performance (2-D r(174) = .289; 3-D r(174) = .324; p <.001).

This research demonstrates pronounced differences in preschoolers’ comprehension of spatial language based on sex and SES, building on previous studies of spatial term production with a new receptive measure appropriate for preschoolers. If, as suggested here, spatial language comprehension in preschool already has important links with mathematics and spatial development, further understanding this subset of lexical development could help better prepare children for our STEM-centric world.

Authors