Francis, KristaRothschuh, S.Poscente, D.Davis, B.2021-06-172021-05-29Francis, K., Rothschuh, S., Poscente, D., & Davis, B. (2021) Malleability of Spatial Reasoning with Short-Term and Long-Term Robotics Interventions. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, online, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09520-72211-1670http://hdl.handle.net/1880/113501https://dx.doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/38928This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Technology, Knowledge and Learning. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09520-7 or https://rdcu.be/clAjYSpatial reasoning correlates with academic success in mathematics and science, is highly malleable, and can be learned. Yet, spatial reasoning is often underused, underdeveloped, and ignored in current grade-school curriculum and teaching. This study explores changes in elementary students’ spatial reasoning skills after participation in either a short-term or a long-term robotics intervention. The robotics intervention and the spatial elements within the intervention tasks are described. Measures of spatial reasoning elements were administered before and after each intervention. Two different groups of students ages 9–10 years were tested: a short-term group (N = 11) and a long-term group (N = 48). Statistical analysis revealed significant improvements to several different elements of spatial reasoning in both groups. Findings suggest that programming robots in either the short- or long-term intervention was associated with improvements in spatial reasoning.enUnless otherwise indicated, this material is protected by copyright and has been made available with authorization from the copyright owner. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission.© 2021 The AuthorsProgramming robotsElementary schoolSpatial reasoningPretest and posttest comparisonjournal article430-2017-0008810.1007/s10758-021-09520-7