1. Introduction
Spatial thinking is a core domain of early mathematical learning. Yet, spatial thinking skills are often ignored in formal education settings during the early years (Pritulsky et al., 2020). This is a significant curricular limitation, given that recent evidence links spatial thinking to readiness for kindergarten, readiness in mathematics, and it “may create a cascade of effects” on later mathematics skills (Verdine et al., 2017; C. A. Bower et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021).
With strong links between young children’s spatial thinking skills and later educational and professional success in STEM fields, it is critical to support children’s spatial thinking at an early age as children’s spatial thinking skills are malleable and can be improved through developmentally appropriate interactions with teachers (Pritulsky et al., 2020; Hedge & Cohrssen, 2019) and parents (Fox et al., 2023; Hall et al., 2023; Verdine et al., 2019). Interventions to foster spatial language demonstrate the usefulness of deliberately fostering these skills (Casasola et al., 2020) and suggest that play-based spatial learning supports numeracy (Resnick & Lowrie, 2023) and overall mathematics skill (Atit et al., 2022). However, interventions to support spatial thinking in preschool classrooms remain understudied, and most early childhood practitioners lack confidence in their understanding of spatial thinking (Bates et al., 2023) and vary considerably in the quality of their instruction and use of spatial language (Schmitt et al., 2023). To address these gaps, teachers need evidence-based, easily accessible resources that allow them to purposefully implement spatial activities in their classroom, while increasing their confidence in how to support preschoolers’ spatial thinking.
To catalyze this positive learning cascade, our team used a design-based implementation research approach (Clements, 2007; Cobb et al., 2003) to develop and test a classroom and home-based intervention to build preschoolers’ spatial orientation vocabulary and skills. The intervention is an eight-week-long series of classroom activities for preschool teachers, including hands-on activities, books, and digital experiences, with complementary activities for caregivers to do with their children at home. The digital experiences use tablets and include both a collaborative game and an Augmented Reality (AR) game. Our team started by creating a learning blueprint that described the specific spatial orientation learning goals that are developmentally appropriate for preschoolers. We then developed an initial version of the intervention, piloted it, and leveraged the findings to improve the usability of the intervention. This paper describes the final stage in the design-based research study, a mixed-methods, quasi-experimental comparison study to test the intervention’s potential to improve children’s spatial learning outcomes.
1.1. Importance of Early Spatial Learning
As Uttal and Cohen (2012) note, a clear definition of spatial thinking is elusive. As a broad category, spatial thinking is defined by the National Research Council (2006) report as “a constructive combination of concepts of space, tools of representation, and processes of reasoning—uses space to structure problems, find answers, and express solutions (p. 1)”. Within the larger umbrella of spatial thinking, spatial orientation includes understanding the relation between different positions in space, the ability to navigate through space, often with the use of maps and models, and spatial vocabulary such as “right/left” and “in front of/behind”, which is critical to being able to communicate about spatial positions with others (Clements & Sarama, 2020).
Spatial thinking skills correlate with the mathematical and quantitative reasoning often used in STEM fields (Reilly et al., 2017) and are critical to STEM success (Gagnier et al., 2021). Reasoning spatially is distinct from analytical, verbal, and logical deduction, in terms of solving mathematical problems (Casey et al., 2008). Spatial skills are correlated with achievement across the STEM fields (Buckley et al., 2018; Uttal & Cohen, 2012) and through middle and high school (Lowrie et al., 2019). his strong evidence supports the association between early spatial skills and later mathematical (and other aspects of STEM) achievement and provides a rationale and even an imperative to support the early development of spatial skills (C. Bower et al., 2020). For example, in 2000, NCTM first recognized and later affirmed (2006) the importance of spatial thinking in early childhood and even recommends introducing it from the first point at which children are introduced to mathematics.
There is a dearth of classroom curricular activities that introduce and consistently support the development of spatial learning at an early age, particularly with play-based and project-based activities (Clements, 2007; Pritulsky et al., 2020; Zimmerman et al., 2019). Clinical interviews with early childhood teachers have found that teachers rarely recognize the spatial elements of curricula and rarely pursue opportunities for spatial instruction within existing curricula (Krakowski et al., 2010). In addition, teachers’ self-reported efficacy to engage students in spatial learning is lower than with other content, such as counting and shapes. It is important to address this curricular gap as teachers’ teaching of spatial concepts influences students’ interest and learning of those concepts (Gagnier et al., 2021).
Early spatial education is necessary for all students to meet their potential, and research supports that spatial skills can improve with educational interventions in schools and at home (Reilly et al., 2017; Lowrie et al., 2019; Uttal & Cohen, 2012; Newcombe & Stieff, 2011). For example, a quantitative analysis of 206 spatial training studies found an average skill improvement of 0.47 standard deviation, and this improvement lasted for months (Uttal et al., 2013). Moreover, spatial thinking has been found to improve with effective technological interventions (Liu et al., 2021). Moreover, the inclusion of spatial thinking in the preschool years is warranted, particularly as this content lends itself to playful experiences that incorporate physical movement (Pritulsky et al., 2020).
Spatial orientation involves finding an object or location in real space. To do this, one must understand their own location in relation to other landmarks and use this understanding to navigate in space. This involves mental mapping: building mental imagery of scaled models and representations of space that correlate to reality (Clements & Sarama, 2020). Spatial orientation skills develop early and grow with experience and maturation. With maturation, children move from using a single, closely oriented external landmark to several landmarks located farther away (Clements & Sarama, 2020).
Our work focuses on three overarching spatial orientation learning goals: (1) Spatial Reasoning: finding objects or locations in space (place learning) and using vocabulary of spatial relations; (2) Spatial Navigation: describing, following, and planning paths in space using spatial vocabulary and relating one’s position to key landmarks; and (3) Spatial Models: using and creating models for spatial reasoning and navigation. These goals progressively build to support children’s development of spatial orientation through language, navigation, and representational skills within the broader framework of spatial orientation (Clements & Sarama, 2020).
1.2. Spatial Reasoning
Spatial Reasoning focuses on understanding and using spatial vocabulary related to proximity (e.g., “in”, “on”, “under”, “beside”, “left”, “right”) and locating objects relative to one or multiple landmarks from different vantage points, including after changes in perspective (Clements & Sarama, 2020; Newcombe et al., 2013). Spatial language is a key cognitive tool that supports the development of spatial reasoning by focusing attention on spatial relationships and categories (Gopnik & Meltzoff, 1987; Majid et al., 2004). While spatial vocabulary does not solely determine spatial abilities, it facilitates an understanding of spatial concepts (Gentner et al., 2013; Newcombe & Stieff, 2011). For example, three-year-olds describe locations in terms of a single landmark and, therefore, tend to initially use vocabulary related to proximity (e.g., “in” and “on”, which require the object to be touching or directly adjacent to the landmark, or “beside” and “between” that connote adjacency). Similarly, four-year-olds can use two relations to describe location and therefore advance to more complex spatial language like “in front of” and “behind”, which do not give definitive information of proximity (Newcombe et al., 2013). Also, around four years of age, children begin to not only understand spatial language but also start to grasp challenging concepts (and vocabulary) such as “left” and “right”, which require understanding one’s position relative to objects rather than just referencing landmarks.
1.3. Spatial Navigation
Spatial Navigation involves tracking one’s movements and proximity to landmarks, planning routes using lines of sight, following directions along connected landmarks, and using tools like maps or simulations to navigate spaces not directly visible (Clements & Sarama, 2020; Newcombe et al., 2013). It builds on foundational spatial orientation skills and language, enabling children to relate themselves to landmarks and describe spatial relationships (Newcombe et al., 2013). Navigation begins with actual movement through space using single landmarks, then progresses to using routes composed of connected landmarks, and eventually to understanding scaled routings involving relative distance between landmarks (Clements & Sarama, 2020). As children develop, they incorporate distance and direction into navigation and begin to plan efficient routes, initially relying on visual cues to navigate spaces beyond direct sight.
1.4. Models and Maps
Spatial Modeling centers on connecting aerial and eye-level views, developing correspondence between models/maps and real-world elements, interpreting abstract symbols, understanding scale, aligning maps with real space through transformations like rotation, and using models and maps to find locations and plan routes effectively (Newcombe & Huttenlocher, 2000; Clements & Sarama, 2020). Maps support spatial reasoning and navigation by helping children relate elements within representations to real-world counterparts, despite differences in scale and perspective (Newcombe et al., 2013; Newcombe & Huttenlocher, 2000). Children begin by connecting simple, realistic models to familiar settings and gradually develop the ability to interpret more abstract symbols and understand scale and orientation through mental rotation (Clements & Sarama, 2020; Newcombe & Huttenlocher, 2000). By the age of five, children start using models and maps to navigate routes, considering distance and efficiency, though these skills continue to develop beyond the preschool years.
1.5. Leveraging Technology in Preschool Classrooms
Historically, researchers and educators have expressed concerns that technology use by young children might negatively impact their social and collaborative skills (McClelland & Morrison, 2003). For technology to be effective in supporting children’s collaboration, it must be designed with an evidence-based approach (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015), incorporating scaffolds, opportunities for engagement, and targeted professional development (Lewis Presser et al., 2023). Digital tools can also support children’s mathematical learning by allowing them to engage efficiently with tasks (i.e., to revisit problems repeatedly and quickly and to correct mistakes), providing immediate feedback, and providing plentiful opportunities to explore with mathematics (e.g., engaging with simulations) and the environment (e.g., allowing children to move around their space and incorporate pictures and videos).
1.6. Potential of AR for Spatial Learning
Augmented Reality (AR) technology offers promising opportunities for enhancing spatial learning because it creates an interactive blend of real and virtual content, enabling student-centred and playful experiences that can improve engagement and motivation (Ponners & Piller, 2020; Dewi, 2020; Jamiat & Othman, 2020). Research shows AR can effectively support learning in areas such as mathematics (Kaufmann & Schmalstieg, 2002), reading (Atit et al., 2022), language acquisition (Aladin et al., 2020), empathy (Zamin et al., 2018), and pretend play (Bai et al., 2015). For preschoolers, AR has been successfully used to teach geometry and spatial concepts by integrating 2-D and 3-D representations, helping children overcome challenges with mental transformations of space (Ahmad & Junaini, 2020; Andrea et al., 2019; Gecu-Parmaksiz & Delialioğlu, 2020; Lin et al., 2015). Studies indicate that AR interventions with scaffolding and game elements can significantly boost students’ spatial knowledge and skills (Chang et al., 2022). Although still emerging, AR holds unique potential to help young children explore multiple spatial representations and develop spatial orientation abilities through engaging, interactive activities (Oranç & Küntay, 2019).
1.7. Development Process
The development and research processes were both guided by a design-based implementation research approach (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003) that began by engaging teachers through co-design meetings and the creation of a learning blueprint to describe the specific spatial orientation learning goals that are developmentally appropriate for preschoolers (see Figure 1). This learning blueprint served as an anchor for the parallel development of the intervention activities and the development of the child assessment tasks to measure children’s learning from the intervention. This consistent focus on the learning goals ensured that the intervention and assessment were aligned to the blueprint and not to each other, thus allowing us to evaluate learning outcomes based on the learning goals themselves. In our initial planning, we used the learning blueprint to solicit feedback from teachers and advisors on our plans for the prototype and used that feedback to create the first version of the intervention activities.
The development and research teams then tested the intervention activities through three rounds of research studies (see Figure 1), using the findings to make iterative revisions to the intervention activities in-between each round. First, we tested the prototype activities through a small user study, then revised the intervention activities into the Alpha version based on the feedback. Second, we conducted a pilot study to test the feasibility of and potential of the intervention with a small group of teachers and children. The pilot study findings (Lewis Presser et al., 2025a) were used to revise the intervention again and develop the Beta version that is the focus of the current article. This article presents findings from the final and third research study: a comparison study using a quasi-experimental mixed methods design to explore the feasibility and developmental appropriateness of the intervention, professional development to support teachers’ effective implementation of the intervention, accompanying resources for families, and the intervention’s potential to generate positive spatial learning outcomes for children.
2. Methods
This section will present the methods and findings for two mixed-methods studies. The main classroom study (Study 1) used an unbalanced, quasi-experimental design that included sixteen classrooms across six preschool programs that were assigned to either implement the full 8-week intervention (10 treatment classrooms) or to continue teaching their usual curriculum (comparison group; 6 classrooms). A small sample of families from the treatment group (n = 13) participated in the family study (Study 2) to test the program’s supporting family resources.
2.1. Implementation Schedule
Prior to the intervention, initial data were collected from all teachers (consent form and pre-survey), parents (consent form and pre-survey questions), and a subset of the children (pre-assessment). Teachers in treatment classrooms participated in professional development (see description below) before implementing the eight-week spatial orientation unit (Figure 2). During teachers’ implementation of the unit, researchers observed teachers implementing some of the classroom activities and using the apps with children in their classroom. At the end of the implementation, post-data was collected in treatment classrooms from teachers (post-survey and interview) and a subset of the children (post-assessment) and parents (post-survey and interview).
2.2. Study 1: The Main Classroom Study
The study focused on examining treatment classrooms to understand (a) the usability and feasibility of implementation, (b) the affordances and challenges of both the intervention overall and of AR experiences, and (c) preliminary outcomes related to teachers’ confidence and teachers’ perceptions of children’s learning. We also compared treatment and comparison classrooms to determine whether engagement in the intervention positively impacted preschoolers’ spatial orientation knowledge, as compared to preschoolers who did not experience the intervention.
2.2.1. Classroom Study Research Questions
Our main classroom study addressed the following research questions:
1. Implementation Feasibility and Support. (a) How did teachers implement the intervention, including modifications and potential for future implementation? (b) What feedback and suggestions did teachers report, including successes and challenges? (c) What instructional activity elements or teacher scaffolds are associated with successful engagement in spatial orientation activities with preschool children? (d) What forms of professional development helped teachers prepare for implementation?
2. Teacher Perceptions of Child Learning. Do teachers report increased spatial orientation knowledge in the participating children (as measured by survey and interview)?
3. Teacher Confidence. After engaging in professional learning and implementing the intervention, do teachers gain confidence in their ability to teach spatial orientation?
4. Child Learning. Does engagement in these instructional activities lead preschool children to increase their spatial orientation knowledge and skills (measured by assessment tasks) in comparison to children who do not experience the intervention?
2.2.2. Classroom Spatial Orientation Intervention
The classroom intervention is intended for an approximately 8-week implementation period. It is organized into four main topics with two weeks allocated for each topic: (1) understanding spatial language (weeks 1 and 2), (2) introduction to maps (weeks 3 and 4), (3) navigating maps (weeks 5 and 6), and (4) making maps (weeks 7 and 8; see Figure 3). These categories build on one another, such that we anticipate teachers will continue to work on content from earlier topics as they move into other areas. For example, teachers will continue to help build children’s spatial language and vocabulary during weeks 3–8. The digital teachers’ guide (
2.2.3. Teacher Professional Development
Teachers in the treatment group prepared to implement the intervention by attending four hours of professional development. Arranged in two virtual sessions, the first session introduced teachers to the overall instructional approach and oriented them to the provided activities and resources. The session then provided an overview of the digital teachers’ guide, which describes directions, materials, key vocabulary, learning goals, and preparation steps for all activities. Each teacher in the treatment group was provided with all the books, materials, and tablets required for implementation of these activities. The second session reviewed the activities in the second half of the intervention and was conducted midway through implementation to ensure that teachers reviewed these activities close in time to the actual implementation. As researchers reviewed each set of activities during the professional development sessions, teachers were able to examine the related hands-on materials and digital tools and were given opportunities to ask questions.
2.2.4. Classroom Study Instruments
In treatment classrooms, researchers conducted classroom observations to document implementation feasibility, successes, and challenges, and teachers completed surveys and interviews to document their implementation of the activities, their preschoolers’ responses to the activities, and suggested revisions to the intervention. In both treatment and comparison classrooms, pre- and post-child assessments were conducted with a sample of children to measure their spatial orientation knowledge. Each instrument is described below:
Classroom activity observations. Researchers observed each of the ten treatment classrooms implementing a sample of the activities (approximately two activities per classroom). During the observations, the classroom teacher led the implementation of the activity with their children. The observation protocol, originally developed in a prior project (Lewis Presser et al., 2018), focused on children’s engagement with and understanding of the activity and its concepts, the feasibility of the activity in the classroom setting, and places where adult scaffolding occurred or was needed. The researcher kept detailed field notes during the observation (Emerson et al., 2001). In addition, the observation protocol asked the observer to indicate general aspects of the activity (e.g., group format, activity location, activity pace and length), activity modifications, and challenges observed.
Teacher pre- and post-survey. The pre-survey collected information from both treatment and comparison teachers about their educational background, demographics, confidence in math, and previous experience with relevant professional development. The post-survey asked treatment teachers about their implementation of the activities, including successes and challenges and any modifications they made. The survey also solicited feedback about the study’s professional development sessions, the digital teacher’s guide, and teachers’ attitudes towards math by the end of the study.
Teacher post-interviews. Researchers conducted individual interviews with teachers using a semi-structured interview protocol that was implemented in two parts, one conducted halfway through the intervention and the second part at the end of the intervention. The interview protocol asked the teacher to reflect on their overall experiences implementing the intervention and specific questions about each activity. For example, researchers asked teachers what they liked and did not like about the activities, as well as what they modified or might modify in the future. For digital games specifically, researchers also asked teachers to report on how their children played the games (individually, in pairs) and their observations related to using the resources in their classroom. Finally, researchers asked teachers about their perceptions of child learning.
Spatial Orientation Assessment Tasks for Children. A sample of children from all classrooms (both treatment and comparison) completed the Spatial Orientation Assessment Task (SOAT) both before and after the intervention, individually with a researcher in a quiet corner of their classroom. This assessment was developed to fill a gap in assessments for this age group, focused specifically on spatial orientation (vs. spatial visualization) content (Lewis Presser et al., 2025b). The team used the learning blueprint to ensure that the assessment items were aligned with the learning goals rather than the intervention itself.
The SOAT contains three distinct parts that are all designed to gather evidence about children’s spatial orientation skills in developmentally appropriate and engaging ways. All parts of the assessment use playful and familiar toys and materials that present children with various scenarios to interact with and respond to questions about. The assessment has a total of 41 items and includes a variety of question formats that provide children with the opportunity to respond in different ways, for example, by pointing, indicating their answers with gestures, placement or navigation of hands-on materials, or through verbal responses. Children’s responses to each item are recorded on a score sheet that denotes all potential responses as Correct or Incorrect and that also allows scorers to record comments and observations, as well as no responses.
The first part, the Barn Task (18 items), incorporates a large, wooden toy barn and ladder along with five accompanying small plastic farm animals (pig, sheep, dog, horse, and cow). This task is designed to assess evidence of children’s spatial reasoning, understanding, and use of spatial language. In this task, children are asked to point to and place animals in various locations around the barn (Figure 4). For example, children are asked to point to the animal that is
The second part, the Arial Barn Task (7 items), uses the same materials as the Barn Task with the addition of a 2D model of the same barn and animals. This task is designed to assess children’s understanding of spatial models for spatial reasoning. During this task, children are provided a picture of the barn from an aerial perspective (e.g., from above like a bird in the sky) and are asked to place the toy animals in various locations around the barn that correspond to pictures/models of the same barn and animals (Figure 5). For example, children are asked to place the toy pig (next to the barn) in the same place as the picture of the pig (next to the picture of the barn).
The final part, the Map Task (16 items), used a large, fabric map with a 3 × 3 grid that depicts common places in a community that children are likely to be familiar with (e.g., park, pizza shop, school building) and an accompanying, smaller version of this same map (Figure 6). The Map Task focuses on children’s understanding of spatial navigation, including their ability to identify and follow paths in relation to position and key landmarks. In this task, children are asked to drive a small toy school bus to different locations and use landmarks to navigate to those locations. In later items, children are also given the smaller version of the map and asked to use their fingers to navigate to locations. For example, children are asked to drive the bus to the playground and find the soccer ball. When using the corresponding small paper map, children are asked to use their fingers to navigate to locations. For example, children are prompted to use their fingers to trace a path and show me how you would walk to the cupcake shop.
2.2.5. Classroom Study Participants
Of the 16 classrooms, 11 were in urban schools (8 treatment, 4 control) and 4 were in suburban schools (2 treatment, 2 control). Fourteen of the classrooms had preschoolers who were dual language learners (9 treatment, 5 control). Teachers described the children’s families from their classroom as low income in 10 classrooms (6 treatment, 5 control), mixed income in 4 classrooms (3 treatment, 1 control), and middle income in 1 classroom (treatment group). Within these classrooms, 21 teachers participated (14 treatment condition, 7 comparison condition) in the study. Survey data from one teacher in the comparison condition was unavailable.
Treatment Group Teachers. Of the teachers in the treatment condition, 10 were the primary teacher in their classroom and 4 were the secondary teacher. All teachers were identified as female. Of the treatment teachers, 1 had a high school diploma or GED, 2 had some college but no degree, 1 had an associate degree, 8 had a bachelor’s degree, and 2 had graduate degrees. Teachers’ years of experience ranged from 3 to 37 years with an average of 18.69 (SD = 12.45). Twelve teachers identified as White, 1 as Black, and one preferred not to respond. Two teachers spoke a language other than English.
Control Group Teachers. Of the teachers in the comparison condition, 6 were the primary teacher in their classroom and 1 was the secondary teacher. All teachers identified as female. Of the control teachers, 1 had a high school diploma or GED, 1 had some college but no degree, 1 had an associate degree, 3 had a bachelor’s degree, and 1 had a graduate degree. Teachers’ years of experience ranged from 9 to 28 years with an average of 19.50 (SD = 7.85). Two teachers identified as Black, 2 as Asian, 1 as White, and 1 as Latinx. Three teachers spoke a language other than English.
Child Characteristics. A subset of 163 children participated in assessments, with 126 children completing both pre- and post-spatial orientation assessment task. Of this group, 84 were in the treatment group and 42 in the control group. Of children with assessment data: gender (44.2% male; 43.5% female; 12.3% missing) and language (42.9% English, 11% Spanish; 1.2% Ukranian; 44.17 Unknown) both had large amounts of missing data.
3. Classroom Study Results
3.1. Implementation Feasibility Findings (Research Question 1a). How Did Teachers Implement the Intervention, Including Modifications and Potential for Future Implementation?
3.1.1. Classroom Implementation Feasibility and Supports
Teacher reports on the feasibility of implementation suggest that preschool children were engaged with the activities, using spatial language, maps, and models relevant for each activity. Classroom observation findings support these teacher reports, and both data sources were used to triangulate areas of challenge where children and/or teachers required additional support, an issue addressed in the intervention’s final revision.
3.1.2. Modifications
During professional development sessions, researchers reviewed each activity and the suggested implementation with teachers; however, teachers were encouraged to modify activities to fit the needs of their classrooms. In survey responses, teachers indicated the various modifications they made to the activities, including changes to activity materials (6), the format of activities (12), the length of activities (6), and outright revisions to the way they conducted the activity (2). Researchers saw many of these modifications during classroom activity observations. Some of the modifications observed included teachers changing the suggested group size to better accommodate the needs of the children, extending or shortening activities when necessary, making adjustments to the pace of an activity, and conducting an activity in a different area of the classroom based on the size and set-up of their space, like the table instead of the rug area and vice versa. During observations, most teachers were able to efficiently act on their desired changes to make the activity the best fit for their classroom.
3.1.3. Future Implementation
At the end of the study, researchers asked teachers how likely they were to continue using the intervention. Of the 14 who responded, teachers stated that they were very (78.6%) or somewhat (21.4%) likely to continue using activities from the program.
3.2. Implementation Feasibility Findings (Research Question 1b). What Feedback and Suggestions Did Teachers Report, Including Successes and Challenges?
3.2.1. General Teacher Implementation Feedback
In survey responses, teachers rated the ease of following the suggested implementation schedule as very (43%) or somewhat (50%) easy for the hands-on activities. During implementation, teachers integrated both hands-on and book-related activities, as well as technology-based activities. Specifically, teachers reported that children played the Map Adventure App every day (28.6%), a couple of days a week (57.1%), or once a week (14.3%). Likewise, teachers reported that in a typical week, children played the AR app every day (14.3%), a couple of days a week (57.1%), or once a week (28.6%).
3.2.2. Book Feedback
Most teachers (and children) very much enjoyed each of the books (e.g., “I liked all the books”; “The children enjoyed all the books”) that were included as part of the program. Some teachers expressed favorites; for example, one teacher stated that Henry’s Map was their class favorite, and another teacher said that Lucy in the City was the least engaging for the students.
3.2.3. Hands-On Activities Feedback
Overall, teachers reported that the classroom activities were well-received and feasible to implement. They particularly valued the hands-on nature of the activities and the use of the characters, noting that children enjoyed physically moving materials around rather than engaging with static activities. For example, one teacher explained that children liked moving the activity cards around the table, saying it was “a different activity—that kept them engaged”. Another teacher observed that children were intrigued by using character props like Gracie and the Goat, which captured their interest more than regular blocks. Teachers also found it easy to observe children’s use of spatial vocabulary during these activities, reporting that children frequently used words such as “beside”, “between”, “next to”, “far away”, and “close to”. One teacher emphasized the importance of this learning for kindergarten readiness, stating, “Now the kids know the difference—in beside, behind, left, right, in front”.
While some earlier activities were less challenging, teachers adapted them by adding materials or increasing complexity to better engage children who mastered tasks quickly. For instance, a teacher shared that because children completed a block activity rapidly due to their skill level, she made it harder by introducing more blocks and additional objectives. Despite these successes, many teachers acknowledged that learning concepts such as learning right and left remained challenging throughout the unit, which aligns with developmental expectations since mastery of this typically occurs later in elementary school. Younger children in the classroom, particularly three-year-olds, had more difficulty with the content, but lessons were adaptable enough for this age group. Some logistical challenges arose from activities requiring physical movement, with teachers emphasizing the need to ensure children did not bump into one another.
3.2.4. Map Adventure App Feedback
While some teachers mentioned that their children enjoyed their time playing this app (e.g., “Most children enjoyed this activity”) and that playing in pairs worked well (e.g., “The children had a lot of fun playing these games. It was nice to watch them work in pairs”). Many felt that their children required more scaffolding and support with the spatial learning concepts and vocabulary to be successful. A couple of teachers reported on their children’s frustrations with gameplay and their need for additional practice time on each level before progression forward. A more scaled-down version of the app that accommodates a greater variety of ages and levels of understanding was suggested.
3.2.5. AR App Feedback
Teachers expressed mixed feedback about this app. The initial version of the AR Adventures app included three games: Apple Orchard, County Fair, and Follow the Feathers. Overall, 10 teachers said they would choose to have children play AR Adventures in the future, with one teacher responding “maybe” and one teacher responding “no”. One teacher reported that “The children liked this app, and it help[ed] to strengthen their working memory and recognize landmarks”. However, many teachers reported that children struggled to use it independently in the classroom for various reasons, including the need for additional scaffolding, trouble discerning the sparkly circle that was required to register responses, and difficulty navigating in the physical space of the classroom. For example, a teacher stated that “Students struggled to use the AR app independently, and teachers needed to guide students through each step. They often did not understand the sparkly circle or did not understand how to navigate around the classroom to complete each task”. This feedback, in conjunction with the correlating video observations data, was critical in revising the AR app after this study to address these concerns.
3.2.6. Implementation Successes
Most teachers shared positive experiences with the study’s resources, highlighting specific successes such as the hands-on activities, associated books and materials, and the spatial vocabulary and conceptual awareness fostered by the program. Teachers described the program as “very successful” with “well-thought-out” materials and activities, noting that children enjoyed the stories and could easily relate them to the curriculum. Teachers found the games on the iPads both “very successful and fun for the children”. They appreciated how the books effectively introduced concepts. The hands-on learning center activities related to spatial language were also praised for engaging children, who were reported to be eager to learn. One teacher remarked that integrating the materials was “the easy part to add to what we were already doing in the classroom.”
Classroom observations supported these reports, showing active use of spatial vocabulary words, along with evidence of child engagement, enjoyment, and interest in the activities. Additionally, teachers incorporated math talk and questioning practices throughout implementation, further enriching the learning environment.
3.2.7. Challenges
Some teachers found it difficult to implement the program within the relatively short and prescribed timeframe of the study, expressing a desire for more time to spread out the activities and provide additional repetition and practice opportunities for their children. For example, one teacher noted that children need repetition to master skills and would have preferred “a longer time to implement the activities and have a longer time to scaffold the materials”. Another teacher stated they “would have liked to have more time to spread them out”, and a third suggested “use[ing] the activities over the course of a year”.
Some teachers also reported that their children had difficulty focusing and engaging on the program’s activities (e.g., “Some of my children were just not interested in some of the activities”); this was particularly true of their younger children (e.g., age 3). Relatedly, some of these teachers also reported that their children particularly struggled with understanding the concepts of left and right. A couple of teachers had trouble during use of the A/R app in their classrooms (e.g., use of AR due to required movement).
Classroom observation data confirmed and also highlighted some of these challenges, particularly the varied interests of some children, dependent on the nature of the activity and relating more specifically to the activities that incorporate the use of left and right directions, since this was an area that children required a lot of support. Observation data also showed how some teachers experienced challenges with modifying activities on the fly when necessary.
3.3. Engagement (Research Question 1c). What Instructional Activity Elements or Teacher Scaffolds Are Associated with Successful Engagement in Spatial Orientation Activities with Preschool Children?
3.3.1. Teacher’s Perceptions of Engagement with Books
Teachers’ ratings of the degree to which each book was engaging to children were high, with no negatively rated books (Figure 7). Many teachers said Henry’s Map was children’s favorite book because it was relatable and engaging due to its simple visuals and plot, e.g., “They all are really into animals and stuff, so that one just kind of clicked with them. They really, really enjoyed it”. Some teachers said Lucy in the City seemed to have some lasting engagement beyond the initial book-reading and activity, e.g., “They really responded well to Lucy in the City. We have it still in our library bookshelf, and they read it on their own”. Compared to the other books, fewer teachers rated the engagement of Mapping My Day as positive due to its length (see next paragraph) and more complex story narrative that some teachers felt was too advanced. However, other teachers said their children, especially the older ones, were especially excited about the hands-on map component of the Mapping My Day book.
3.3.2. Teacher’s Perceptions of Engagement with Hands-On Activities
Teachers’ ratings of the degree to which each hands-on activity was engaging to children were relatively high, with only one instance of negative ratings (Figure 8 and Figure 9). There were many highly rated hands-on activities, with Navigating a Treasure Map, Different Kinds of Maps, Bird’s Eye View of Lucy in the City, and Where did the Piggies Go? rated best. Teachers mentioned the treasure map premise and use of obstacle courses as popular with children, e.g., “They really, really enjoyed doing the treasure hunt and then the obstacle course. I’d have to say that was probably the favorite week for the children…It was the kids loved it. I mean, just to see like their face…throughout the whole process they were so excited”. The physicality of the obstacle course was also valued, e.g., “They were talking it through all the things that children, you know what I mean? They were using their bodies…The words, they were looking at the maps. So as a teacher I thought there was a lot that they were gaining from that activity”. The lowest rated activity was Paddleboat, as children often had difficulty coordinating their movements together, e.g., “The caterpillar was the hardest because trying to walk. But sitting and doing the rowing was a little more like—they seemed to be less clumsy”. Thus, the physical movement was valued throughout the hands-on activities, but also presented some logistical challenges.
3.3.3. Teacher’s Perceptions of Engagement with Map Adventure App
Teachers’ ratings of the degree to which each game was engaging to children were also high (Figure 10). All teachers rated engagement as “positive” for the City and Farm Maps, e.g., “The children had a lot of fun playing these games. It was nice to watch them work in pairs”. All but a few teachers rated engagement with Landmarks and Goat Challenge as “positive”. The teachers who rated engagement as neutral or negative for these games felt like they were too challenging for children and caused frustration. Teachers suggested that children may need more scaffolding and support with the spatial learning concepts and vocabulary to be successful, or additional practice time on each level before progression forward. Overall, 13 teachers said they would choose to have children play Map Adventure again in the future, with one teacher responding “maybe”.
3.3.4. Teacher’s Perceptions of Engagement with AR App
For the Apple Orchard and County Fair components, teachers rated the degree to which the game was engaging to children as high, either “positive” or “neutral” (Figure 10). One teacher rated children’s engagement with the Follow the Feathers component as “negative”. Teachers expressed mixed feedback about this app, with many reporting that children struggled to use it independently in the classroom for various reasons, including the need for additional scaffolding, trouble discerning the sparkly circle, and difficulty navigating the physical space of the classroom.
3.4. Teacher Professional Development Findings (Research Question 1d). What Forms of Professional Development Helped Teachers Prepare for Implementation?
3.4.1. Professional Learning Sessions
In survey responses, teachers rated the program orientation/teacher professional development virtual sessions as very (92.9%) or somewhat (7.1%) helpful. Teachers generally found that the sessions prepared them to implement the program in their classrooms. For example, teachers said, “The professional development sessions provided a thorough overview of the program and with email correspondence I felt I was well supported”, “It was exactly what was needed”, and “I wouldn’t change anything about this”. Some teachers mentioned wishing there were more sessions, or specifically suggested the researchers include an in-person component and/or example videos for teachers to watch of activity implementation.
3.4.2. Teacher’s Guide Suggestions
In survey responses, all teachers rated the online Teacher’s Guide as very helpful (100%) and stated, “It was well written and found it very helpful” and “an excellent tool”. Yet, teachers also shared a variety of suggestions for improvement. These suggestions included the inclusion of videos of activity implementation; examples of adaptations, variations, and/or ways to extend activities; more thorough descriptions of the activities and games; additional information relating to activity preparation and planning; and additional pedagogical background information. In response to these suggestions, revisions were made to the teachers’ guide, including the addition of videos as suggested.
3.5. Teacher Perceptions of Children’s Learning Findings (Research Question 2). Do Teachers Report Increased Spatial Orientation Knowledge in the Participating Children (as Measured by Survey and Interview)?
All teachers rated the educational value of each classroom activity, in the form of circle time (Figure 11) or learning center activities (Figure 12), as either “positive” or “neutral”.
Teachers reported that learning vocabulary was the most noticeable learning outcome. Teachers made statements such as “I thought it was a good basis for kids that are just learning the spatial words”. While learning right and left was considered very challenging content, teachers also reported that children learned these words and started using them, even though they made errors regularly. For example, a teacher said: “I did notice that they were able to differentiate between left and right”, and “I definitely feel like the left and the right they have the language, like they’re really picking up... But I feel like that’s been the hardest skill for them”.
In using maps, many teachers found that children were able to use routes and landmarks to navigate. Teachers said: “They just amaze me how they’re picking up so much of it, like the landmarks and the vocabulary…and enable to follow those directions. They’re using the vocabulary in their daily things…I embed it in throughout the whole day if I can”. Teachers also mentioned that by exploring spatial concepts, they were also able to talk about perspectives. For example, “Well, I thought it was a good way to introduce perspectives…[its] an interesting learning opportunity that I hadn’t thought of myself. And I’ve done been in the field for over 30 years….the book was perfect to show the different views I am gonna keep going with the perspective view because we were also thinking of they’re really into building and I thought maybe we could create a neighborhood on a big piece of cardboard with boxes and stuff”. Making and using maps was a noted learning outcome. Teachers reported things like: “Learning position on a map, learning about grids…” and “Learning how to make a map. Learning about landmarks. Learning about just the idea of a map”. Overall, teachers felt this program provided positive learning and fit into the classroom. A teacher said, “The spatial thinking study can kind of integrate easier into what you’re already learning about” and “They’re enjoying it while they’re learning”. Teachers also mentioned that their own professional learning increased and said, “I feel like I’m learning as much as they’re learning” and “You’re learning right along with them”.
3.5.1. Teacher’s Perceptions of Children’s Learning from Books
All teachers rated the educational value of each book as either “positive” or “neutral” (see Figure 13). No teacher rated the books negatively. Many teachers mentioned through interviews that the Piggies in the Pumpkin Patch book was easy and simple enough for the younger children to understand, making it a good introduction to the subject. Teachers felt Henry’s Map really helped children learn new vocabulary words because they were paired with strong visuals, e.g., “It’s a simple read and because the pictures, they’re understanding the language of it, and they’re able to retell that story”. Lucy in the City, which teachers read on the last week of the intervention, seemed to be a great way for children to review the different concepts they learned over the course of the curriculum, e.g., “They were able to identify the landmarks, find them on the map, finding Lucy’s home marked by the “X” on the map. That was really exciting for them”. Follow-up interviews confirmed and provided teachers with the opportunity to expand on these views. Most teachers shared positive impressions of the program’s books, mentioning their children’s interest and engagement during book reading, and their personal enjoyment as well. Some specific positive feedback included how some books often fostered multiple readings, how they often remained in their classroom bookshelves for children to look at independently, how much rich spatial vocabulary they contained, and an appreciation for how some of the intervention’s hands-on activities were directly linked to the books. Some teachers shared that some of the books required modified readings, for example, if it was too long to keep the attention of the children in the classroom or if there was a part that was confusing.
3.5.2. Teacher’s Perceptions of Children’s Learning from Map Adventure App
Teachers rated the educational value of the games highly. All teachers rated the educational value of City and Farm Maps as positive, and all but one teacher rated the educational value of Landmarks and Goat Challenge as positive (this teacher rated those games as neutral; Figure 14). No teacher rated the games negatively for educational value.
3.5.3. Teacher’s Perceptions of Children’s Learning from AR App
For Apple Orchard and County Fair, teachers rated the educational value of the games highly, either “positive” or “neutral” (Figure 14), e.g., “The children liked this app, and it help to strengthen their working memory and recognize landmarks”. For Follow the Feathers, almost all teachers rated the educational value of the game as “positive” or “neutral”, with only one teacher rating it as “negative”. During study follow-up interviews, most teachers shared that despite children’s technical difficulties and their need for additional scaffolding, their impression was that the resources supported some learning because they allowed children to engage in spatial navigation, and they provided an additional opportunity to hear spatial vocabulary words.
3.6. Teacher Confidence Findings (Research Question 3). After Engaging in the Professional Learning and Implementing the Intervention, Do Teachers Gain Confidence in Their Ability to Teach Spatial Orientation?
To address RQ 3, we examined the percent of lead teachers in the treatment (n = 5) and comparison conditions (n = 10) who agreed with seven items about their feelings about teaching math and about the development of children’s math skills, both on the pre- and post-surveys. On the pre-survey before the intervention, there was no significant difference between the average percent of the seven items (four items were reverse scored) that teachers in the comparison group (M = 82.85, SD = 11.95) and teachers in the treatment group (M = 91.42, SD = 12.05) agreed with, t(13) = −1.30, p = 0.22. There was also no significant difference between teachers’ average scores on the post-survey after the intervention between the comparison group (M = 84.29, SD = 20.45) and treatment group (M = 86.90, SD = 18.42), t(13) = −2.51, p = 0.81. Future studies may see stronger patterns of increases in teachers’ confidence with teaching spatial orientation skills if they include items that specifically ask teachers about spatial skills, rather than math more generally, and include larger sample sizes. When examining teacher’s responses on particular items (see Figure 15), it was promising to see that all teachers across both conditions agreed with the statement, “I believe the inadequacy of a student’s math background can be overcome by good teaching”, and 100% of teachers in the treatment group and 80% of teachers in the comparison group agreed with the statement, “Young children generally like math and are interested in it”.
3.7. Child Learning Findings (Research Question 4). Does Engagement in These Instructional Activities Lead Preschool Children to Increase Their Spatial Orientation Knowledge and Skills (Measured by Assessment Tasks) in Comparison to Children Who Do Not Experience the Intervention?
To address RQ 4, we used a 2-level HLM analysis with students’ scores (Level 1 units) nested within classrooms (Level 2 units), including condition (treatment or comparison group) as a level 2 covariate to improve precision. Pre-test scores and child age in months were added as covariates at the child level (level 1), as covariates typically increase the statistical precision (Bloom, 2005; Bloom et al., 2007). Figure 16 shows the pre and post-test means by group.
3.7.1. Baseline Equivalence
There was baseline equivalence between the groups at pre-test, as the two groups did not significantly differ on scores at the beginning of the study. Specifically, the treatment (M = 28.62, SD = 7.86) and comparison (M = 27.82, SD = 8.45) groups did not differ statistically at the first testing point (p = 0.668, effect size = 0.250).
3.7.2. Child Post-Learning Outcomes
A 2-level HLM analysis suggests the experimental group’s post-test scores (M = 32.05; SD = 7.07) were statistically different than the control group’s (M = 28.49; SD = 7.11) on the spatial orientation content when children’s age in months and pretest scores was statistically controlled (p = 0.030, effect size = 0.889).
Summary of the model specified
Level-1 Model
T2COMPij = β0j + β1j*(T1COMPij) + β2j*(AGEINMONij) + rij
Level-2 Model
β0j = γ00 + γ01*(GROUPj) + u0j
β1j = γ10
β2j = γ20
Mixed Model
T2COMPij = γ00 + γ01*GROUPj
+ γ10*T1COMPij
+ γ20*AGEINMONij
+ u0j + rij
4. Family Study Methods
From the participating treatment classrooms, researchers recruited a small sample of families to participate in a study to test the program’s complementary family resources. This part of the study began at the end of the classroom study after all child assessments were conducted, thus, the post-assessment scores do not reflect any additional learning this subgroup may have obtained (see Figure 2, Implementation Flow). Participating families received access to a digital family guide with twelve activities to test, along with a set of books and materials to support engagement in these activities. After trying out the activities, caregivers participated in a virtual interview to provide researchers with their feedback on the home-based activities and to share any suggested revisions. They also completed short surveys to rate their perceptions of their child’s spatial learning and STEM Identity at the beginning and the end of the study period.
4.1. Family Study Research Questions
The family study addressed the following research questions: Activity Usability and Comprehensibility. (a) What were the successes? (b) What were the challenges? Implementation Supports. What instructional activity elements or caregiver scaffolds are associated with successful engagement in spatial orientation activities with preschool children? Parent Perceptions of Child Learning. Do caregivers report an increase in spatial orientation knowledge in the participating children (as measured by survey and interview)? Parents’ Perceptions of Child STEM Identity. Do caregivers report increases in STEM identity in the participating children?
4.2. Family Study Spatial Orientation Intervention
The home intervention is intended to complement activities happening in the preschool classroom. The full intervention is categorized into five types of activities, including: Books, on-the-go, meal, paper play, and digital-based activities. As this work is built on a prior project, we asked participating families to test only the twelve new activities we intended to add to the original set of home-based activities that were tested in a prior project (Sherwood & Lewis Presser, 2017). The full, final set of activities includes 34 home-based math activities. Participating families were sent a package with all the associated books and materials needed to try these activities with their child at home. This included 3 books and 9 paper-based, interactive hands-on activities. Each activity included clear and detailed instructions. The final version of the activities is published on a freely available family app.
4.3. Family Study Instruments
Caregiver feedback was obtained through post-interviews and pre-/post surveys. A semi-structured protocol was employed to help researchers understand caregivers’ experiences using the activities at home with their children. Caregivers were asked questions about each activity’s successes and challenges and about their use of the materials and books. In addition, we asked families about any perceived impact of these activities on their child’s learning. On the pre- and post-surveys, caregivers completed five questions about their child’s STEM identity since child participants were too young to adequately and reliably respond to the survey questions. The scale contained five items about the extent to which children were interested in math (e.g., “My child gets excited about math”; “My child likes to use math to solve problems”) with a 5-point scale (1 = strongly agree; 5 = strongly disagree). The goal was to determine if children’s STEM identity improved during the course of the classroom and home studies, as child identity is positively related to the pursuit of STEM careers (Morris et al., 2019).
4.4. Family Study Participants
Thirteen caregivers from the intervention group classrooms participated in the home intervention study (four classrooms had two caregivers participate, five classrooms had one caregiver participate, and one classroom had no caregivers participate). Seven caregivers identified their child’s race as Black or African American, six as White, two as Hispanic or Latino, one as Asian, and one as “other”.
5. Family Study Results
5.1. Activity Usability and Comprehensibility Findings (Research Question 5). (a) What Were the Successes? (b) What Were the Challenges?
5.1.1. Caregivers Rated Each Activity on Its Engagement, Length and Difficulty
Overall, activities were rated as very engaging or engaging for their child (Figure 17), just right in length (Figure 18), and either neutral or easy to do with their child (Figure 19). Caregivers shared their appreciation for the opportunity to spend more time with their children, talking and learning about topics that they do not normally focus on. Many also acknowledged the benefits of the program’s home-school connection and commented on enjoying the overlap in books their child experienced in school and at home, their child’s excitement and recognition of the Gracie character in both places, and how they appreciated the repetition of spatial vocabulary throughout their child’s day.
5.1.2. Caregivers Ratings of Books: Usability and Comprehensibility
Caregivers were provided with three book recommendations, and they reported positively about several features of the books, including their bright images and colors and engaging characters. Some caregivers shared that they liked how the suggested activities surrounding the book reading featured imaginative play or linked to physical activities. Many appreciated that the books were simple and not too long or complex, and that they provided a helpful context for using spatial vocabulary.
5.1.3. Caregiver Ratings of Home-Based Activities: Usability and Comprehensibility
When discussing the program’s hands-on activities, the activities that caregivers spoke most positively about were those with simple, clear directions and with easy-to-use, common materials. Many caregivers most enjoyed engaging in activities that are similar to games that they already play with their children at home, for example, an activity called Gracie Says that is very similar to Simon Says and another called Freeze Dance that features a dance party with a spatial language twist. Similarly to this sentiment, families also seem to enjoy activities that contain a gross motor component. A few families talked about appreciating how many of the activities presented opportunities for intergenerational play, for example, including simple ways to include a younger sibling or a grandparent, or ways to include multiple family members. When discussing the unique learning affordances of the program, some families also discussed enjoying that some of the activities allowed their children to learn about maps, navigation, directions, landmarks, and geography. This sometimes led to conversations about their family’s origins, places where their relatives live, etc.
5.1.4. Caregiver Ratings of Challenges: Usability and Comprehensibility
Reported challenges were limited. Some families reported that their child struggled with concepts of right and left throughout all the program’s books and activities. Other noted challenges related to keeping a child’s attention through the duration of one of the longer books and activities, and not feeling like the suggested time of day was the best time for their family to conduct an activity (for example, bedtime).
5.2. Implementation Supports Findings (Research Question 6). What Instructional Activity Elements or Caregiver Scaffolds Are Associated with Successful Engagement in Spatial Orientation Activities with Preschool Children?
Many caregivers talked about specific features of the books and activities that they felt supported learning engagement with their children.
5.2.1. Parent Perceptions of Engagement with Books
Caregivers mentioned that books with bright images and engaging characters were highly valued. In addition, books with a simple, short narrative that contained embedded and relevant spatial topics were seen as successful. Books that lent themselves to a fun narrative or related activity were also viewed positively, for example, books with a pretend play or physical activity component, like Albert’s Amazing Snail.
5.2.2. Parent Perceptions of Engagement with Activities
Caregivers reported that activities with simple, clear directions and easily found materials were the most successful for families to implement. Also, activities that most closely resembled commonly used games with familiar rules were desirable, for example, Gracie Says, which resembles the game Simon Says. Activities that incorporate physical movement, like dancing in Freeze Dance, also resulted in successful engagement.
5.3. Parent Perceptions of Child Learning Findings (Research Question 7). Do Caregivers Report an Increase in Spatial Orientation Knowledge in the Participating Children (as Measured by Survey and Interview)?
The majority of caregivers agreed that the books and activities contributed to their child’s learning (Figure 20). Only one activity on one occasion received a lower score of “disagree”. Some parents also provided rich descriptions of the types of learning that the activities fostered.
5.3.1. Parent Perceptions of Children’s Learning with Books
Feedback on the books provided included a parent feeling like their child developed a better sense of cardinal directions, and another feeling like the books motivated their child to practice using the spatial vocabulary words from the story.
5.3.2. Parent Perceptions of Children’s Learning with Home Activities
Many parents reported that the study activities promoted spatial learning by providing opportunities for their children to practice following directions and using spatial relations vocabulary words. Some parents mentioned how the activities not only provided them with new ideas of enriching activities to do with their children but also taught them about the kinds of words their children know and are capable of knowing. Other areas of learning reported by parents included learning about maps and globes, as well as the continents, cities, and states that they comprise. This occasionally included additional discussion and learning about where families live or where they are originally from. One parent mentioned that an activity supported their child’s perseverance, ability to solve problems, and patience.
5.4. Parents’ Perceptions of Child STEM Identity Findings (Research Question 8). Do Caregivers Report Increases in STEM Identity in the Participating Children?
In the surveys, caregivers rated that their children had more interest in math (averaged score on the math interest scale) after the intervention (M = 2.4, SD = 0.5) compared to their interest before the intervention (M = 2.17, SD = 0.42), t(11) = 1.80, p = 0.05.
6. Discussion
Overall, these studies demonstrate the feasibility and benefit of integrating spatial learning into preschool classrooms and at home, addressing a critical need for accessible spatial learning resources in early childhood education (Bates et al., 2023; Pritulsky et al., 2020). The integration of hands-on activities, books, and digital tools—including augmented reality (AR)—effectively engaged preschoolers and supported their acquisition of spatial vocabulary and concepts, consistent with evidence that spatial skills are malleable and benefit from developmentally appropriate interactions with adults (Casey et al., 2008; Borriello & Liben, 2018).
Teacher reports of increased confidence and professional growth address documented gaps in educator preparedness to teach spatial content (Bates et al., 2023; Krakowski et al., 2010), suggesting that targeted professional development is essential for effective implementation. Teachers considered the spatial orientation lessons both appealing and practical for implementation. Caregivers appreciated the home-based activities, which successfully engaged their children. Both teachers and caregivers noted an increase in their children’s interest in math throughout the intervention. Furthermore, children participating in the intervention group demonstrated superior performance on spatial orientation assessments compared to those in the comparison group.
The positive child learning outcomes observed on spatial orientation assessments reinforce established links between early spatial skills and later success in STEM fields (Newcombe, 2010; Verdine et al., 2017), highlighting the importance of embedding spatial thinking in preschool curricula. This positive movement in learning for the intervention group, particularly given the short period of the intervention, suggests that further inclusion of spatial learning throughout the preschool year may be beneficial.
Regarding technology use, findings align with meta-analytic research indicating that scaffolded AR interventions can enhance spatial knowledge and motivation (Chang et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2021), while also underscoring challenges such as the need for additional scaffolding and usability improvements.
Teachers who participated in the intervention provided their suggestions for improving the ease of use of the hands-on activities and apps for the children in their classroom. Based on these findings, we iterated again (see Figure 1 for design-based research process) and revised the intervention before its release to the public, making all the updated lessons available for free on the internet (
Limitations
There are several limitations to this study, such as the small sample size, the need to replicate findings with a larger sample, and the lack of outcomes specific to the technology tools alone. The small sample size in this study limits the generalizability of findings and suggests that a larger study is needed to confirm and support this study’s conclusions. In addition, the outcomes relate to the whole intervention, not just the technology tools embedded in the program, thus, future research should include measures specific to the learning outcomes of the technology itself.
7. Conclusions
The findings suggest that this intervention was feasible for teachers and caregivers to implement, enjoyable for preschoolers, and helped children gain spatial orientation knowledge. This is particularly important, as there are few resources for preschoolers focused on building spatial orientation knowledge and skills. Our work contributes to the field’s knowledge about how best to foster the development of spatial orientation skills in preschoolers’ classrooms and in their homes, using familiar resources and innovative technologies. Since the opportunities for mathematics in general, and for spatial orientation learning in particular, are often limited for preschool children, this intervention may help children in the future gain valuable mathematics knowledge. The next steps will be to conduct additional research on the learning outcomes for the technology component of the intervention and to validate findings in a larger study.
8. Patents
Intellectual property of the apps and the teacher’s guide and instructional lessons belong to [Gracie & Friends, WGBH Educational Foundation, 2014, 2022].
Conceptualization, A.E.L.P., E.B. and R.V.; methodology, A.E.L.P., E.B. and R.V.; formal analysis, A.E.L.P., E.B. and R.V.; investigation, A.E.L.P., E.B. and R.V.; data curation, A.E.L.P., E.B. and R.V.; writing—original draft preparation, A.E.L.P., E.B. and R.V.; writing—review and editing, A.E.L.P., E.B. and R.V.; visualization, A.E.L.P. and E.B.; supervision, A.E.L.P.; project administration, A.E.L.P., E.B. and R.V.; funding acquisition, A.E.L.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of the Education Development Center (protocol code 2144 and 8 November 2021).
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The data presented in this study may be requested by contacting the corresponding author, who will work with EDC’s Office of General Counsel and EDC’s Human Protection to ensure that sharing data complies with human protections standards and abides by EDC’s intellectual property policy. The data are not publicly available due to the terms of the consent forms signed by preschool center directors, teachers, and parents that specifies that data will be kept confidential (e.g., “Video and audio recordings will not be used other than by researchers from this research study”).
We thank our participating teachers and students, as well as project advisors who have provided valuable feedback.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Design-based research process.
Figure 2 Implementation flow.
Figure 3 Organization of intervention learning activities.
Figure 4 Barn task with animals.
Figure 5 Aerial barn view.
Figure 6 Image of large and small maps.
Figure 7 Teachers’ ratings of children’s engagement with books.
Figure 8 Teachers’ ratings of children’s engagement with circle time activities.
Figure 9 Teachers’ ratings of children’s engagement with the learning center activities.
Figure 10 Teachers’ ratings of children’s engagement with the apps.
Figure 11 Teachers’ Ratings of the Educational Value of the Circle Time Activities.
Figure 12 Teachers’ Ratings of the Educational Value of the Learning Center Activities.
Figure 13 Teachers’ ratings of the educational value of the books.
Figure 14 Teachers’ ratings of the educational value of the apps.
Figure 15 Teachers’ agreement with statements about math before and after the intervention.
Figure 16 Students’ scores on spatial orientation pre- and post-test by condition.
Figure 17 Caregivers’ ratings of how engaging each activity was for their child.
Figure 18 Caregivers’ ratings of the length of each activity.
Figure 19 Caregivers’ ratings of how difficult it was to do each activity with their child.
Figure 20 Caregivers’ agreement that the activity contributed to their child’s learning.
Appendix A
This appendix describes each of the classroom activities used in the intervention.
| Activity | Description |
| Piggies in the Pumpkin Patch | Children listen to a story about two piggies who run all around the farm, having fun. |
| Henry’s Map | Children listen to the story of Henry, who makes his own map. |
| Mapping My Day | Children listen to a story about Flora, a girl who loves to draw maps. |
| Lucy in the City | Children listen to a story about Lucy, who gets lost in the city but finds her way home by retracing her steps. |
| Circle Time Activities | |
| Where did the Piggies Go? | As the teacher rereads Piggies in the Pumpkin Patch, children draw the piggies’ route on a map. |
| Gracie Says Left! Right! | Children play a version of “Simon Says” to help children practice left and right. |
| Caterpillar | Children play Caterpillar to practice right and left. |
| Paddleboat | Children play Paddleboat to practice right and left. |
| Freeze Dance | Children play a different version of freeze dance, using spatial language. |
| Different Kinds of Maps | Children view different kinds of maps and compare them. |
| The Maps in Mapping My Day | Children take a closer look at the different maps in Mapping My Day. |
| Map the Classroom | Children identify classroom landmarks and create a large map. |
| Follow Henry’s Map | As the teacher rereads Henry’s Map, children use maps to draw the route Henry takes around the farm. |
| Make a Walkable Map | As the teacher rereads Henry’s Map, children “walk the map” around the classroom. |
| Navigating a Treasure Map | Children hunt for treasure outdoors, following a map. X marks the spot! |
| Making a Map on a Grid | Children use animals to make a map on a grid. |
| Make an Obstacle Course Map | Children create a map of an obstacle course. |
| Bird’s Eye View of Lucy in the City | Children explore Lucy in the City. When Lucy is lost, she gets help from the owl, who has a bird’s eye view of the city. |
| Learning Center Activities | |
| Block Party | Children pick cards and build block towers that match the cards. |
| Gracie and the Goat | Children pick a card and use the Gracie and goat character props to match the positions on the card. |
| A Closer Look at Different Kinds of Maps | Children take a closer look at the maps presented during Circle Time. |
| Little Classroom Maps | Children each create a smaller version of the classroom map. |
| Friends on the Map | Children add pictures of children to the classroom map. |
| To the Rescue! | Children use the classroom map during a pretend “emergency”. |
| Navigating an Obstacle Course | Children use a map to follow an obstacle course. |
| Navigating Amazing Maps | Children use a map to help Gracie find the shortest route to the museum. |
| Make Your Own Map | Children create a map of a city, a farm, or a carnival. |
| Birds Eye View of the Classroom | Children explore the difference between a bird’s eye view and a ground view in your classroom. |
| Apps | |
| Map Adventures: Landmarks | Children play the Landmarks games in the Map Adventures app by focusing on spatial language. Go around the pond to collect ducklings, jump up and down with pigs, and more! |
| Map Adventures: City and Farm Maps | Children navigate the Farm Map together and visit the animals. Children navigate the City Map together and visit different landmarks, watching out for roadblocks. |
| Map Adventures: Goat Challenge | Goat Challenge game in the Map Adventures app, which focuses on spatial directions and navigation. Collaborative play is needed to navigate the map while avoiding the goats. |
| AR Adventures: Apple Orchard | Children move Gracie on the map to the apple trees, collect some apples, and feed the animals. |
| AR Adventures: County Fair | Children locate fair rides in augmented reality and make a map of the fair. |
| AR Adventures: Follow the Feathers | Children navigate a map to help Mama Hen find her chicks. |
Ahmad, N. I. N.; Junaini, S. N. Augmented reality for learning mathematics: A systemic literature review. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. (iJET); 2020; 15,
Aladin, M. Y. F.; Ismail, A. W.; Salam, M. S.; Kumoi, R.; Ali, A. F. AR-TO-KID: A speech-enabled augmented reality to engage preschool children in pronunciation learning. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 979, International Conference on Virtual and Mixed Reality Interfaces; Johor, Malaysia, November 16–17; 2020.
Andrea, R.; Lailiyah, S.; Agus, F.; Ramadiani,. ‘Magic Boosed’ an elementary school geometry textbook with marker-based augmented reality. Telkomnika (Telecommunication Computing Electronics and Control); 2019; 17,
Atit, K.; Power, J. R.; Pigott, T.; Lee, J.; Geer, E. A.; Uttal, D. H.; Ganley, C. M.; Sorby, S. A. Examining the relations between spatial skills and mathematical performance: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review; 2022; 29,
Bai, Z.; Blackwell, A. F.; Coulouris, G. Exploring expressive augmented reality. The 33rd Annual ACM Conference; Seoul, Republic of Korea, April 18–23; 2015; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702250]
Bates, K. E.; Williams, A. Y.; Gilligan-Lee, K. A.; Gripton, C.; Lancaster, A.; Williams, H.; Borthwick, A.; Gifford, S.; Farran, E. K. Practitioners’ perspectives on spatial reasoning in educational practice from birth to 7 years. British Journal of Educational Psychology; 2023; 93, pp. 571-590. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12579]
Bloom, H. Bloom, H. S. Randomizing groups to evaluate place-based programs. Learning more from social experiments: Evolving analytic method; Russell Sage Foundations: 2005; pp. 115-172.
Bloom, H.; Richburg-Hayes, L.; Black, A. Using covariates to improve precision for studies that randomize schools to evaluate educational interventions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis; 2007; 29,
Borriello, G. A.; Liben, L. S. Encouraging maternal guidance of preschoolers’ spatial thinking during block play. Child Development; 2018; 89,
Bower, C.; Odean, R.; Verdine, B. N.; Medford, J. R.; Marzouk, M.; Golinkoff, R. M.; Hirsh-Pasek, K. Associations of 3-year-olds’ block-building complexity with later spatial and mathematical skills. Journal of Cognition and Development; 2020; 21,
Bower, C. A.; Zimmermann, L.; Verdine, B. N.; Toub, T. S.; Islam, S.; Foster, L.; Evans, N. S.; Odean, R.; Cibischino, A.; Pritulsky, C.; Hirsh-Pasek, K.; Golinkoff, R. M. Piecing together the role of a spatial assembly intervention in preschoolers’ spatial and mathematics learning: Influences of gesture, spatial language, and socioeconomic status. Developmental Psychology; 2020; 56,
Buckley, J.; Seery, N.; Canty, D. A heuristic framework of spatial ability: A review and synthesis of spatial factor literature to support its translation into STEM education. Educational Psychology Review; 2018; 30, pp. 947-972. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9432-z]
Casasola, M.; Wei, W. S.; Suh, D. D.; Donskoy, P.; Ransom, A. Children’s exposure to spatial language promotes their spatial thinking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General; 2020; 149,
Casey, B. M.; Andrews, N.; Schindler, H.; Kersh, J. E.; Samper, A.; Copley, J. The development of spatial skills through interventions involving block building activities. Cognition and Instruction; 2008; 26,
Chang, H.-Y.; Binali, T.; Liang, J.-C.; Chiou, G.-L.; Cheng, K.-H.; Lee, S. W.-Y.; Tsai, C.-C. Ten years of augmented reality in education: A meta-analysis of (quasi-) experimental studies to investigate impact. Computers & Education; 2022; 191, 104641. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104641]
Clements, D. H. Curriculum research: Toward a framework for ‘research-based curricula’. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education; 2007; 38, pp. 35-70.
Clements, D. H.; Sarama, J. Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach; Routledge: 2020.
Cobb, P.; Confrey, J.; DiSessa, A.; Lehrer, R.; Schauble, L. Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher; 2003; 32,
Design-Based Research Collective. Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher; 2003; 32,
Dewi, F. Augmented reality for young learners [Paper presentation]. iTELL (Indonesia Technology-Enhanced Language Learning) Conference; Bogor, Indonesia, February 22–23; 2020.
Emerson, R. M.; Fretz, R. I.; Shaw, L. L. Participant observation and fieldnotes. Handbook of Ethnography; 2001; pp. 352-368.
Fox, D. S.; Elliott, L.; Bachman, H. J.; Votruba-Drzal, E.; Libertus, M. Diversity of spatial activities and parents’ spatial talk complexity predict preschoolers’ gains in spatial skills. Child Development; 2023; 95,
Gagnier, K. M.; Holochwost, S. J.; Fisher, K. R. Spatial thinking in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Elementary teachers’ beliefs, perceptions, and self-efficacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching; 2021; 59,
Gecu-Parmaksiz, Z.; Delialioğlu, Ö. The effect of augmented reality activities on improving preschool children’s spatial skills. Interactive Learning Environments; 2020; 28,
Gentner, D.; Ozyurek, A.; Gucanli, O.; Golden-Meadow, S. Spatial language facilitates spatial cognition: Evidence from children who lack language input. Cognition; 2013; 127,
Gopnik, A.; Meltzoff, A. The Development of Categorization in the Second Year and Its Relation to Other Cognitive and Linguistic Developments. Child Development; 1987; 58,
Hall, L. V.; Rengel, M.; Bowley, H.; Alvarez-Vargas, D.; Abad, C.; Overton, D.; Pruden, S. M. “You did a great job building that!” Links between parent–child prosocial talk and spatial language. Developmental Psychology; 2023; 59,
Hedge, K.; Cohrssen, C. Between the red and yellow windows: A fine-grained focus on supporting children’s spatial thinking during play. SAGE Open; 2019; 9,
Hirsh-Pasek, K.; Zosh, J. M.; Golikoff, R. M.; Gray, J. H.; Robb, M. B.; Kaufman, J. Putting education in “educational” apps: Lessons from the science of learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest; 2015; 16,
Jamiat, N.; Othman, N. F. N. Examining kindergarten students’ motivation on augmented reality apps: A survey using emoticons. ASM Science Journal; 2020; 13,
Kaufmann, H.; Schmalstieg, D. Mathematics and geometry education with collaborative augmented reality. SIGGRAPH ‘02: ACM SIGGRAPH 2002 Conference Abstracts and Applications; San Antonio, TX, USA, July 21–26; 2002; pp. 37-41. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1242073.1242086]
Krakowski, M.; Ratliff, K.; Gomez, L.; Levine, S. Spatial intelligence and the research—Practice challenge. Learning in the Disciplines: ICLS 2010 Conference Proceedings—9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences; Chicago, IL, USA, June 29–July 2; 2010; Vol. 1, pp. 556-563.
Lewis Presser, A. E.; Dominguez, X.; Kamdar, D.; Vahey, P. Preschoolers learning spatial reasoning skills with digital and non-digital activities at home: A pilot study. Manuscript in preparation; 2025a.
Lewis Presser, A. E.; Dominguez, X.; Kamdar, D.; Vidiksis, R. Finding our way around: Development of an assessment of preschoolers’ spatial orientation knowledge. Manuscript submitted for publication; 2025b.
Lewis Presser, A. E.; Dominguez, X.; Vahey, P.; Orr, J.; Kamdar, D. Finding our way around (FOWA): Preschool children and parents learning spatial thinking skills with digital games. National Association for the Education of Young Children, Early Math Interest Forum Business Meeting; Washington, DC, USA, November 22; 2018.
Lewis Presser, A. E.; Young, J. M.; Rosenfeld, D.; Clements, L. J.; Kook, J. F.; Sherwood, H.; Cerrone, M. Data collection and analysis for preschoolers: An engaging context for integrating mathematics and computational thinking with digital tools. Early Childhood Research Quarterly; 2023; 65,
Lin, H. C. K.; Chen, M. C.; Chang, C. K. Assessing the effectiveness of learning solid geometry by using an augmented reality-assisted learning system. Interactive Learning Environments; 2015; 23,
Liu, S.; Wei, W.; Chen, Y.; Hugo, P.; Zhao, J. Visual-spatial ability predicts academic achievement through arithmetic and reading abilitites. Frontiers in Psychology; 2021; 11, 591308. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.591308]
Lowrie, T.; Logan, T.; Hegarty, M. The influence of spatial visualization training on students’ spatial reasoning and mathematics performance. Journal of Cognition and Development; 2019; 20,
Majid, A.; Bowerman, M.; Kita, S.; Haun, D. B. H.; Levinson, S. C. Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Science; 2004; 8,
McClelland, M. M.; Morrison, F. J. The emergence of learning related social skills in preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly; 2003; 18,
Morris, B. J.; Owens, W.; Ellenbogen, K.; Erduran, S.; Dunlosky, J. Measuring informal STEM learning supports across context and time. International Journal of STEM Education; 2019; 6, 40. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0195-y]
National Research Council. Learning to think spatially; The National Academies Press: 2006; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17226/11019]
Newcombe, N. S. Picture this: Increasing math and science learning by improving spatial thinking. American Educator; 2010; 34,
Newcombe, N. S.; Huttenlocher, J. Making space; MIT Press: 2000.
Newcombe, N. S.; Stieff, M. Six myths about spatial thinking. International Journal of Science Education; 2011; 24,
Newcombe, N. S.; Uttal, D. H.; Sauter, M. Zelazo, P. Spatial development. Oxford handbook of developmental psychology; Oxford University Press: 2013.
Oranç, C.; Küntay, A. C. Learning from the real and virtual worlds: Educational use of augmented reality in early childhood. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction; 2019; 21, pp. 104-111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.06.002]
Ponners, P. J.; Piller, Y. Zheng, R. Z. The reality of augmented reality in the classroom. Cognitive and affective perspectives on immersive technology in education; IGI Global: 2020; pp. 51-66. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-3250-8]
Pritulsky, C.; Morano, C.; Odean, R.; Bower, C.; Hirsh-Pasek, K.; Michnick Golinkoff, R. Spatial thinking: Why it belongs in the preschool classroom. Translational Issues in Psychological Science; 2020; 6,
Reilly, D.; Neumann, D. L.; Andrews, G. Khine, M. Gender differences in spatial ability: Implications for STEM education and approaches to reducing the gender gap for parents and educators. Visual-spatial ability in STEM education; Springer: 2017; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44385-0_10]
Resnick, I.; Lowrie, T. Spatial reasoning supports preschool numeracy: Findings from a large-scale nationally representative randomized control trial. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education; 2023; 54,
Schmitt, S. A.; Elicker, J. A.; Purpura, D. J.; Duncan, R. J.; Schmerold, K. L.; Budrevich, A.; Bryant, L. M.; Finders, J. K. The effects of a high quality state-run preschool program as rated by a quality rating and improvement system on children’s school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly; 2023; 62, pp. 89-101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.07.013]
Sherwood, H.; Lewis Presser, A. E. Building your child’s internal GPS. Family Trails Magazine; 2017; 2,
Uttal, D. H.; Cohen, C. A. Spatial thinking and STEM education: When, why, and how?. Psychology of learning and motivation; Academic Press: 2012; Vol. 57, pp. 147-181.
Uttal, D. H.; Miller, D. I.; Newcombe, N. S. Exploring and Enhancing Spatial Thinking: Links to Achievement in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics?. Current Directions in Psychological Science; 2013; 22,
Verdine, B. N.; Golinkoff, R. M.; Hirsh-Pasek, K.; Newcombe, N. S. Links between spatial and mathematical skills across the preschool years. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development; 2017; 82,
Verdine, B. N.; Zimmerman, L.; Foster, L.; Marzouk, M. A.; Golinkoff, R. M.; Hirsh-Pasek, K.; Newcombe, N. Effects of geometric toy design on parent-child interactions and spatial language. Early Childhood Research Quarterly; 2019; 46, pp. 126-141. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.03.015] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30555211]
Wang, S.; Hu, B. Y.; Zhang, X. Kindergarteners’ spatial skills and their reading and math achievement in second grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly; 2021; 57,
Zamin, N.; Khairuddin, F. A.; Rambli, D. R. A.; Ibrahim, E. N. M.; Soobini, M. S. A. Building empathy in young children using augmented reality. International Journal of Engineering & Technology; 2018; 7,
Zimmerman, L.; Foster, L.; Golinkoff, R. M.; Hirsh-Pasek, K. Spatial thinking and STEM: How playing with blocks supports early math. American Educator; 2019; 42,
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Braham, Emily; Regan, Vidiksis