Effects of Spatial Training on Mathematics in First and Sixth Grade Children
Mix, Kelly S.; Levine, Susan C.; Cheng, Yi-Ling; Stockton, Jerri DaSha; Bower, Corinne (2021). Journal of Educational Psychology, v113 n2 p304-314 Feb 2021. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1283179
-
examining83Students, grades1-6
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Spatial visualization or form perception training - Mix et al. (2021))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV) - Block Design Subtest |
Spatial visualization or form perception training - Mix et al. (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
11.39 |
10.86 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Broad mathematics composite |
Spatial visualization or form perception training - Mix et al. (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
6th grade students;
|
0.09 |
-0.19 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Broad mathematics composite |
Spatial visualization or form perception training - Mix et al. (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
1st grade students;
|
0.07 |
-0.16 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Interpreting the meaning of mathematics symbols |
Spatial visualization or form perception training - Mix et al. (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
6th grade students;
|
0.06 |
-0.12 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Word problems |
Spatial visualization or form perception training - Mix et al. (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
6th grade students;
|
0.56 |
0.52 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Place value concepts |
Spatial visualization or form perception training - Mix et al. (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
1st grade students;
|
0.49 |
0.45 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number line estimation (0-1000) |
Spatial visualization or form perception training - Mix et al. (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
1st grade students;
|
0.28 |
0.27 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Word problems |
Spatial visualization or form perception training - Mix et al. (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
1st grade students;
|
0.55 |
0.53 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Place value concepts |
Spatial visualization or form perception training - Mix et al. (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
6th grade students;
|
0.71 |
0.70 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 57%
Male: 43% -
Rural, Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Illinois, Michigan
-
Race Other or unknown 3% Two or more races 5% White 92% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 7% Not Hispanic or Latino 93% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in eight schools across five school districts in Michigan and Illinois. The schools were located in both urban and rural communities.
Study sample
The study included first- and sixth-grade students who were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) a spatial visualization training group, (2) a form perception training group, and (3) a comparison group. The analytic sample included 258 students: 134 in first grade and 124 in sixth grade.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention condition received one of two training programs designed to improve students’ visual and spatial skills: spatial visualization training or form perception training. Spatial visualization training included three types of activities: (1) part-whole object completion, (2) mental rotation, and (3) tangram puzzles. The activities occurred on an iPad. In the part-whole task, students identified shapes to complete a square which was missing a piece. In the mental rotation activity, students were asked to rotate shapes to identify shapes that were the same. In the tangram activity, students used geometric tiles (triangles, squares, and parallelograms) to recreate a two-dimensional figure. Students received feedback on their answers and used hands-on materials (such as cardstock cutouts and paper circles) to check rotations and solutions. Form perception training also included three types of activities: (1) visual-spatial working memory (VSWM), (2) Corsi Block Tapping Test, and (3) figure copying. In the VSWM task, students viewed a figure in a grid on an iPad and then recreated the figure in a blank grid. In the Corsi Block Tapping Test, students watched a sequence of blocks light up and then were asked to recreate the sequence. In the figure copying task, students copied a line drawing. They then compared examples of “good” and “not-so-good” drawings to understand the differences. Students in both intervention groups completed six 30-minute sessions delivered over three or four weeks, with tasks increasing in difficulty over time.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition completed language arts activities, including crossword puzzles, rhyming words, and word search puzzles. Students completed the activities on iPads and received feedback when their responses were incorrect. Like students in the intervention groups, the comparison group completed six 30-minute sessions delivered over three or four weeks.
Support for implementation
The study did not describe any formal training or coaching provided to the adults who delivered the sessions.
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Spatial visualization training - Mix et al. (2021))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Interpreting the meaning of mathematics symbols |
Spatial visualization training - Mix et al. (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
6th grade students;
|
0.10 |
-0.12 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 52%
Male: 48% -
Rural, Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Illinois, Michigan
-
Race Other or unknown 3% Two or more races 5% White 92% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 7% Not Hispanic or Latino 93% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in eight schools across five school districts in Michigan and Illinois. The schools were located in both urban and rural communities.
Study sample
The study included first- and sixth-grade students who were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) a spatial visualization training group, (2) a form perception training group, and (3) a comparison group. The analytic sample for this contrast included 83 students in sixth grade, with 41 in the intervention group and 42 in the comparison group.
Intervention Group
Spatial visualization training included three types of activities: (1) part-whole object completion, (2) mental rotation, and (3) tangram puzzles. The activities occurred on an iPad. In the part-whole task, students identified shapes to complete a square which was missing a piece. In the mental rotation activity, students were asked to rotate shapes to identify shapes that were the same. In the tangram activity, students used geometric tiles (triangles, squares, and parallelograms) to recreate a two-dimensional figure. Students received feedback on their answers and used hands-on materials (such as cardstock cutouts and paper circles) to check rotations and solutions. Students completed six 30-minute sessions over three or four weeks, with tasks increasing in difficulty over time.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition completed language arts activities, including crossword puzzles, rhyming words, and word search puzzles. Students completed the activities on iPads and received feedback when their responses were incorrect. Like students in the intervention groups, the comparison group completed six 30-minute sessions delivered over three or four weeks.
Support for implementation
The study did not describe any formal training or coaching provided to the adults who delivered the sessions.
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Form perception training - Mix et al. (2021))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Interpreting the meaning of mathematics symbols |
Form perception training - Mix et al. (2021) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
6th grade students;
|
0.02 |
-0.12 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 52%
Male: 48% -
Rural, Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Illinois, Michigan
-
Race Other or unknown 3% Two or more races 5% White 92% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 7% Not Hispanic or Latino 93% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in eight schools across five school districts in Michigan and Illinois. The schools were located in both urban and rural communities.
Study sample
The study included first- and sixth-grade students who were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) a spatial visualization training group, (2) a form perception training group, and (3) a comparison group. The analytic sample for this contrast included 83 students in sixth grade, with 41 in the intervention group and 42 in the comparison condition.
Intervention Group
Form perception training included three types of activities: (1) visual-spatial working memory (VSWM), (2) Corsi Block Tapping Test, and (3) figure copying. In the VSWM task, students viewed a figure in a grid on an iPad and then recreated the figure in a blank grid. In the Corsi Block Tapping Test, students watched a sequence of blocks light up and then were asked to recreate the sequence. In the figure copying task, students copied a line drawing. They then compared examples of “good” and “not-so-good” drawings to understand the differences. Students completed six 30-minute sessions over three or four weeks, with tasks increasing in difficulty over time.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition completed language arts activities, including crossword puzzles, rhyming words, and word search puzzles. Students completed the activities on iPads and received feedback when their responses were incorrect. Like students in the intervention groups, the comparison group completed six 30-minute sessions delivered over three or four weeks.
Support for implementation
The study did not describe any formal training or coaching provided to the adults who delivered the sessions.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).