







































Georgian Geographical Journal 

 

Spatial Thinking in Primary Geography 

Education: A Design-Based Intervention in 

Georgia 
Manana Ratiani1,* , Maia Madzgharashvili2 
1 Associate Professor, Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Georgia 
2 

Teacher, Galaktion Tabidze Public School No. 51, Tbilisi, Georgia
 

* Corresponding author: manana.ratiani@iliauni.edu.ge 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

Spatial thinking is an essential component of human cognitive development, enabling individuals to 

understand relationships between objects and space while visualising, interpreting, and predicting 

spatial patterns (NRC, 2006). Developing these skills is particularly crucial in geography education, 

where spatial representations form the basis for both information analysis and decision-making. 

International educational research demonstrates that establishing spatial thinking foundations at the 

primary level is critically important for students' subsequent subject-specific and metacognitive success. 

However, in the Georgian educational environment, this component is insufficiently integrated into 

both standards and textbooks. Consequently, students often struggle with map reading and recognising 

spatial connections between environmental elements. This deficit undermines the teaching-learning 

process and hinders students' ability to solve real spatial problems. Teachers are frequently forced to 

develop appropriate activities independently, as existing resources provide insufficient support. This 

article presents a pedagogical intervention designed to develop spatial thinking competence using 

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) methodology. The article describes the design research process, 

frameworks and tools used, presents data analysis and discussion, and offers recommendations to 

policymakers and educators for improving instruction in this area. 

Conceptual Framework 

Developing effective instructional design requires robust theoretical foundations, especially when 

cultivating complex skills such as spatial thinking. This study relies on three primary theoretical 

frameworks: Problem-Based Learning (PBL), the Geographic Reasoning Framework, and Design-

Based Research. 

Georgian Geographical Journal, 2025, 5(2) 58-67 

© The Author(s) 2025 

 
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/). 

DOI: 

https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GGJ 

Abstract 

Students' spatial thinking and problem-solving skills are crucial components 

of modern primary education. While the Georgian National Curriculum 

emphasises spatial representations and environmental perception skills, 

significant challenges exist in their practical implementation. Textbooks often 

lack tasks that engage students with real spatial problems and develop 

argumentative thinking. This article presents design research conducted in a 

fifth-grade class at a Tbilisi public school. The study aimed to improve 

students' spatial thinking and decision-making skills using the Problem-Based 

Learning (PBL) model. Five interventions addressed real geographical 

situations, including settlement planning, protected area selection, and 

infrastructure placement. Results showed that targeted and consistent work on 

spatial tasks significantly improved students' abilities to read maps, recognise 

spatial relationships, and make rational choices. Despite progress, certain 

difficulties persisted, particularly in aligning self-assessment with actual 

performance and developing analytical thinking components. The article 

examines contradictions between standards and textbooks, identifying 

characteristics of pedagogical practice that either facilitate or hinder spatial 

skills development. 

Keywords: Spatial thinking, primary level, problem-based learning, 

standard, design research, geography education 

Citation: Ratiani, M.; Madzgharashvili, M. 

Spatial Thinking in Primary Geography 

Education: A Design-Based Intervention in 
Georgia. Georgian Geographical Journal 
2025, 5(2), 58-67 

https://doi.org/10.52340/ggj.2025.05.02.10 

 

 



Ratiani & Madzgharashvili. 2025 5(2) 

59 
 

1. Problem-Based Learning (PBL) PBL is a constructivist approach where learning is based on 

real and multifaceted tasks. In this model, the student becomes an active learner who tries to 

define issues, find information, analyze, evaluate, and solve problems (Barrows, 1986). In 

geography education, PBL is particularly effective because it allows students to consider real-

world geographical problems. 

2. Geographic Reasoning Framework Gersmehl and Gersmehl (2011) propose a geographic 

reasoning model consisting of seven components: identifying location, analyzing spatial 

distribution, explaining patterns, understanding movement patterns, evaluating connections, 

comparing regions, and making decisions. Using this framework allows students to conduct 

structured spatial analysis.  

3. Design Research (DBR) is one of the most promising methodologies in education research, 

especially when the goal is to solve practical problems and improve teaching. According to 

Arthur Bakker (2018), design research has a clear structure, theoretical basis, and practical 

purpose. 

Key Aspects of Design Research (Bakker, 2018): 

• Problem-Oriented Approach: Design research begins by identifying urgent educational 

problems. It seeks to solve real problems through innovative means rather than merely 

describing existing practices. 

• Interconnection of Theory and Practice: This methodology integrates theory and 

practice. Products developed during research (learning materials, activities, frameworks) 

are built on theoretical foundations and enrich theory in return. 

• Interventionist Nature and Innovative Design: Design research involves creating and 

testing interventions to improve learning environments. Interventions can include new 

teaching methods, structured activities, or technological tools. 

• Iterative Cycles: The research process is characterized by repetitive cycles—design 

creation, testing, analysis, and revision. This enables continuous improvement and 

refinement in real contexts. 

According to Bakker's approach, design research is a rich, theoretically grounded, and practice-

oriented methodology that is particularly powerful when learning standards inadequately support 

student cognitive development. During this research, all three frameworks were used interactively. 

Literature Review: Spatial Problem-Solving in Primary Geography Education 

Spatial thinking is increasingly recognized as a fundamental competence in geography education, 

especially at the primary level, where it enables students to engage in critical analysis and decision-

making about their environment. Research indicates the importance of creating learning experiences 

that are not only age-appropriate but also address shortcomings in learning standards and textbooks 

(Bakker, 2018; Buckley et al., 2018). 

Spatial skills development begins in early childhood with topological concepts (e.g., "near," "inside," 

"around") and gradually progresses to more complex spatial-projective concepts such as scale, symbols, 

and coordinates. Research by National Geographic shows that primary school students (especially 

grades II-IV) begin understanding maps but still need support in interpreting spatial connections and 

symbols (National Geographic Society, 2016). 

Cognitively, Buckley et al. (2018) emphasize that spatial skills are multifactorial and include 

visualization, orientation, mental rotation, and spatial perception—all directly related to academic 

achievement, especially in STEM disciplines. These skills develop through targeted tasks and activities 

such as understanding directions, creating maps, or making decisions about specific spatial problems—

which directly aligns with primary geography education contexts. 

Fiveable (2024) clearly states that spatial thinking extends beyond map reading to encompass a full 

cycle of geographical inquiry: asking spatial questions, acquiring and organizing information, analyzing 

connections, and making relevant decisions. This approach is compatible with problem-based learning 

models that promote active student engagement and encourage thinking development. 

Nevertheless, spatial thinking remains incompletely integrated into primary education standards. 

Textbooks often emphasize memorizing facts and technical map reading rather than spatial-cognitive 

tasks. A learning design-based approach can address this gap, especially when linking students' real 

needs with evolving research strategies (Bakker, 2018). 



Ratiani & Madzgharashvili. 2025 5(2) 

60 
 

Primary geography education focused on spatial problem-solving requires both recognizing the 

diversity and developmental potential of spatial skills and implementing research-based instructional 

design. The synthesis of various academic disciplines—cognitive psychology, educational design, and 

practice—creates a solid foundation for developing spatial thinking and problem-solving skills in 

students. 

Methods and Materials 

This research is based on Design-Based Research (DBR) methodology, which aims to develop 

innovative educational practices and test them in real contexts. DBR involves cyclical planning, 

implementation, evaluation, and redesign of educational interventions (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012). 

This approach is particularly important when developing complex skills in resource-limited conditions. 

The study was conducted in the academic year 2024-2025 in a fifth-grade class at Tbilisi Public School 

No. 51, with 23 students. Teacher Maia Madzgharashvili was involved as an equal partner and active 

observer. Student teachers from the training programme, Mariam Gagua and Keso Kankia, conducted 

the interventions. Student teacher involvement proved particularly effective, as students felt 

comfortable with younger facilitators, experienced less stress, and could ask questions freely. This 

approach promotes more active student involvement and reduces barriers between teacher and student. 

Data Collection  

The instruments used included:  

o Standard and textbook analysis  

o Analysis of student work (maps, tables, arguments for choices)  

o Student self-assessment forms 

o Interviews with the teacher 

Intervention Design 

Each intervention included the following structure, shown on the scheme 

The study included five interventions, each planned at three-week intervals. Each intervention was 

based on the PBL model and represented a task based on real geographical contexts, such as: 

• Planning a prototype settlement 

• Selecting the location of a protected area 

• Analyzing infrastructure placement (school, clinic) 

• Assessing natural disaster risk and planning routes 

• Planning recreational zones considering residents' interests 

 

Figure 1. Design elements 



Ratiani & Madzgharashvili. 2025 5(2) 

61 
 

Data Analysis 

Data analysis divided information according to three main components: 

• Map reading and spatial identification ability 

• Reasoned decision-making ability 

• Accuracy of self-assessment 

Qualitative and quantitative data analysis was conducted using Excel. Student work was evaluated 

according to a rubric (satisfactory, partially improved, incompetent) and analyzed after each 

intervention. 

Participant Selection for Analysis 

Important Note on Sample Size: While 23 students are in the class, only 9 students attended all five 

interventions and were included in the final analysis. This reduction was necessary to maintain data 

integrity, as the cyclical nature of the interventions required consistent participation to track skill 

development progression. 

Absenteeism poses particular challenges for this age group (fifth graders) as they are not yet 

independent learners. Unlike older students, fifth graders cannot effectively review missed spatial 

thinking activities at home, especially since these activities are not part of licensed textbooks. The 

hands-on, collaborative nature of the interventions—involving map work, group discussions, and 

guided problem-solving—cannot be replicated through traditional homework assignments. Students 

who missed interventions lacked the foundational skills needed for subsequent activities, making it 

methodologically inappropriate to include incomplete data sets in the analysis. This limitation 

highlights the importance of consistent attendance for cumulative skill development in primary 

education. 

Ethical Considerations 

With parental and school agreement, all students participated anonymously. Materials used contain 

no names and strictly adhere to confidentiality principles. The teacher and school received summarized 

analysis results. 

Analysis of Standards and Textbooks 

The Georgian National Curriculum (MoE, 2018) defines compulsory achievements for students in 

"Our Georgia," which includes geographical components alongside history. Although the document 

generally addresses spatial connections between environmental elements, it lacks specific instructions 

for developing spatial thinking as a separate competence. 

The standard presents terms such as "recognizing spatial connections," "map reading," and 

"representing the environment," but these are not accompanied by relevant explanations, minimal 

indicators, or task typologies, increasing the risk of multiple interpretations. Consequently, teachers 

often remain unclear about what teaching these competencies means in practice. 

Despite the Georgian National Curriculum's stated emphasis on developing spatial representations and 

environmental perception skills, practical implementation faces significant challenges stemming from 

current educational materials' shortcomings. A typical exercise from the widely used "Our Georgia" 

textbook (Avtandilashvili et al., 2018) asks students: "What is the location of Kartli on the map of 

Georgia? Which historical-geographical regions of Georgia border it? Are there more hills or plains in 

Kartli?" Similarly, page 52 asks students to "List, with the help of the map, which regions of Georgia 

border Imereti?" 

These tasks, and many others like them, are purely descriptive and extractive, requiring only direct 

information retrieval from maps rather than fostering genuine problem-solving or analytical 

engagement with spatial data. This reliance on rote recall rather than critical thinking fundamentally 

hinders true spatial reasoning development. 

The root of this issue lies in the national standard's generalized directives, which fail to compel 

textbook authors to create situation-based problems demanding analytical map work. For instance, 

within the "Space" concept, the standard merely requires students to "discuss the reasons for the 

diversity of landscapes characteristic of Georgia." This level of abstraction falls far short of fostering 

robust spatial thinking. 

In contrast, by fourth grade, National Geographic's standards expect students to "analyze geographic 

contexts in which current events and issues occur," exemplified by tasks like describing "geographic 



Ratiani & Madzgharashvili. 2025 5(2) 

62 
 

factors that would influence the decision on where to locate a new school in the local community" 

(National Geographic Society, n.d.). This disparity highlights a significant competency gap, where 

Georgian primary students engage with spatial concepts at far less complex and practical levels than 

international peers, ultimately impeding their ability to apply spatial thinking to real-world scenarios. 

Furthermore, comprehensive visual resources (diagrams, maps, pictures) essential for developing 

spatial representations are often absent in textbooks. This resource lacks forces educators to find or 

create materials independently, increasing teacher workload and leading to teaching quality 

inconsistencies. 

The discrepancy between standards and textbooks was highlighted during intervention planning. It 

became clear that standard minimum requirements do not correspond to skills students need. For 

example, understanding spatial sequences between water, forest, village, and mountain objects on maps 

and formulating reasoned choices is required by neither the standard nor textbook tasks. 

Teacher interviews revealed the need for clear guidelines for spatial task work and practical examples 

aligning with national curriculum goals. One educator noted: "I rarely have the opportunity or time to 

create spatial tasks myself. The textbook focuses more on factual knowledge." 

The analysis indicates a systemic challenge—current standards and textbooks at Georgia's primary 

level do not ensure development of spatial thinking competencies essential for modern education. This 

discrepancy creates barriers to learning effectiveness and increases individual teacher workload. 

Design Description and Its Use as a Problem-Solving Tool 

The design developed within this study was based on the SPBL (Spatial Problem-Based Learning) 

model and aimed to overcome difficulties caused by the lack of spatial thinking components in standards 

and textbooks. The combined integration of PBL and the Geographic Reasoning Framework allowed 

us to create tasks based on real contexts, considering spatial relationships, natural-geographical factors, 

and reasoned decisions. 

One main innovation was the interventions' cyclical nature. Each intervention combined problem 

presentation, data comprehension, map reading and spatial reasoning, alternative comparison, and 

reasoned decision-making. All five interventions relied on active student participation, cognitive 

stimulation, and self-assessment. 

Each intervention followed a structured five-step process designed to guide students through 

comprehensive spatial problem-solving (see Fig. 1): 

Step 1: Problem Presentation 

Students were presented with an authentic geographical scenario that required spatial decision-

making. For example, they might receive a scenario stating: "A group of early humans needs to establish 

a permanent settlement. As their advisor, you must help them choose the best location from three 

possible sites." The problem was introduced through storytelling to engage students and establish the 

real-world relevance of their task. 

Step 2: Data Analysis 

Students examined multiple information sources including topographic maps, climate data, resource 

availability charts, and contextual information about the geographical area. They were guided to 

identify key spatial elements such as water sources, elevation patterns, vegetation cover, and proximity 

to resources. This step required students to extract relevant information from visual and textual sources 

systematically. 

Step 3: Alternative Evaluation 

Students worked in small groups to compare multiple location options using predetermined criteria. 

They used evaluation matrices where each potential site was assessed against factors such as water 

accessibility, defensibility, resource availability, climate suitability, and transportation routes. Students 

assigned numerical scores to each criterion and calculated total scores for each alternative, fostering 

analytical thinking and systematic comparison. 

Step 4: Reasoned Decision 

Based on their analysis, students selected their preferred location and constructed written arguments 

justifying their choice. They were required to explain not only why their chosen site was optimal but 

also why they rejected the alternatives. This step emphasized the development of argumentation skills 

and required students to synthesize their spatial analysis into coherent reasoning. 

Step 5: Reflection/self-assessment 

Students assessed their decision-making process and outcomes through structured self-evaluation 

forms. They considered questions such as: "Which factors were most important in your decision?" 



Ratiani & Madzgharashvili. 2025 5(2) 

63 
 

"What additional information would have been helpful?" and "How confident are you in your choice?" 

This metacognitive component helped students understand their own learning processes and identify 

areas for improvement in future spatial problem-solving tasks. 

Tasks were designed so students genuinely considered the appropriateness of placing various objects 

according to specific criteria, such as where primitive humans should settle; which area is most 

appropriate for creating a protected area; where a school building or alpine base should be built. Tasks 

involved comparing several parameters—proximity to water, terrain, climate, safety, infrastructure 

accessibility, and others. Students worked with tables, evaluating each parameter with points, then made 

in-depth reasoned choices. 

Another important design element was map use. Each task began with a schematic map that students 

needed to read to analyze spatial characteristics. Map work offered visual and analytical links between 

problems and environmental elements, enabling skill development in determining location, estimating 

distance, distinguishing directions, and establishing object connections. 

Starting from the fourth intervention, students began working on spatial problems where their chosen 

locations were based on strong argumentation and alternative comparison. The design's consistent 

development was precisely the factor contributing to competency deepening. The teacher used 

reflection stages after each task, where students evaluated their decisions and explored how better 

choices could have been made. 

The design solved several significant problems: 

• Gap between standard and tasks: PBL interventions created alternative spaces for working 

in real geographical contexts 

• Teaching monotony: Tasks diversified student activities 

• Teacher challenge: The design was easily reproducible and adaptable by teachers 

• Lack of self-assessment and reflection: Integrated self-assessment modules ensured 

metacognitive skills development 

As a result, students not only gained better understanding of geographical concepts but also developed 

decision-making, argumentation, and spatial visualization skills, contributing to their overall academic 

development. The research clearly showed that using this design type effectively overcomes 

shortcomings caused by standard generality and resource scarcity at the primary level. 

Results 

Analysis of design research results clearly showed that students' spatial thinking and reasoned 

decision-making skills significantly improved as a result of interventions. This progress is reflected in 

student work, teacher reflections, and self-assessment forms. 

 

Figure 2 shows evaluation results comparing preliminary and final stages across key competencies. 

This clearly demonstrates that students made progress in each competence. Of these competencies, the 

Figure 2. Competency development from preliminary to final stages 



Ratiani & Madzgharashvili. 2025 5(2) 

64 
 

least progress was recorded in visual elements use, indicating that students had already developed this 

competence substantially and could use it as needed. 

Understanding instructions for multi-stage tasks was initially problematic. Textbook analysis showed 

that most tasks were one or two-stage, preventing students from concentrating on topics for extended 

periods. Therefore, incomplete or unsuccessful task completion initially raised questions about whether 

this was due to student competence deficiencies or instruction comprehension problems. Thus, 

explaining instructions and presenting tasks was critically important. 

Figure 3 presents the progression of student performance across all five interventions, showing steady 

improvement in spatial reasoning abilities. The data shows the evaluation results of 9 students, as only 

9 students attended all interventions. Under conditions of incomplete attendance, drawing conclusions 

based on participants' competencies becomes difficult. In general, absenteeism is a problem that reduces 

the effectiveness of planned and implemented activities. In the Georgian reality, such a study, which 

examines the impact of absenteeism in this context, does not exist. 

Self-assessment data showed that most students initially assessed their work with maximum scores, 

despite errors. However, by the fifth intervention, as a result of active teacher feedback and group 

discussions, students' self-assessments aligned with actual performance in over 70% of cases. This 

indicates progress in metacognitive skills—students learned how and why to assess their own learning. 

Figure 4 illustrates the alignment between student self-assessment and actual performance across the 

intervention period. 

Figure 3. Student performance progression across interventions 

Figure 4. Convergence of self-assessment and actual performance 



Ratiani & Madzgharashvili. 2025 5(2) 

65 
 

Data confirms that with design progress, students' approaches to tasks and instruction understanding 

changed. While the first intervention was characterized by template-based perception and difficulty in 

functional map use, from the third intervention students began better perceiving information and 

reasoning. For example, on given map territories, they evaluated not only geographical factors but also 

environmental impact (e.g., roads running through forests requiring maintenance). 

According to the teacher, student engagement significantly increased during proposed tasks when 

decisions depended on them rather than just finding correct answers. This reflects PBL approach 

effectiveness—interest and motivation increase when students are responsible for thinking and choice. 

Analysis also revealed several challenges, as represented in figure 5. For some students, map 

orientation remained problematic—especially correctly reading scale and symbols. However, the main 

challenge was argumentation, the clear, academic formulation of their results. These difficulties indicate 

that teaching spatial thinking should include not only problem-solving but also consistent work on 

developing appropriate domain-specific vocabulary and argument formation. 

According to the teacher's assessment, students who had self-confidence deficits in teamwork 

struggled with analysis and justifying their positions, but over time, they began formulating arguments 

better. This confirms that, under supportive environment conditions and consistent stimulation, spatial 

thinking competence is accessible to a wide range of students. 

The intervention's consistent nature proved to be an important success factor. While first tasks were 

based on simpler scenarios, each subsequent intervention increased demands—parameter numbers 

became more complex, conflicting choices were added, and argumentation required refinement. Thus, 

progress was conditioned not by one-time activities but by structured and adapted intervention 

sequences. 

The ability to make reasoned choices, which initially was based primarily on single-sentence 

evaluations (e.g., "It's a good place"), gradually evolved into multi-factorial reasoning: "The selection 

of this territory is due to its proximity to water, high elevation, and forest protection, which creates a 

safe environment for a primitive settlement." 

Finally, analysis clearly shows that through effectively planned and consistent interventions, it is 

possible to develop complex skills that empower students not only in subject knowledge but also in 

general thinking and self-reflection. This research demonstrates that, given appropriate design, students 

begin to think spatially—not mechanically, but consciously, critically, and argumentatively. 

Conclusion 

The main findings clearly demonstrate that developing spatial thinking and problem-solving skills at 

the primary level is possible if teaching is based on problem-based, consistent, context-oriented design. 

The interventions revealed students' increasing progress not only in map reading and identifying spatial 

relationships but also in argumentation quality, decision-making processes, and self-assessment 

accuracy. 

Figure 5. Comparison of how the analytical competence developed 



Ratiani & Madzgharashvili. 2025 5(2) 

66 
 

Findings: 

• Clear discrepancy exists between standards and practice—standards are general and do not define 

minimum levels for spatial skill competencies 

• Textbooks are dominated by superficial, descriptive tasks that induce neither critical thinking nor 

reasoned choice 

• Problem-based interventions create learning environments that develop spatial thinking with both 

subject-specific and metacognitive components 

• Student engagement significantly increases when they are allowed to work on real problems and 

make decisions independently 

• Teacher support and professional development are critically important for designing tasks that meet 

students' evolving needs 

Recommendations: 

For Policy Makers: 

• Revise the National Curriculum to include clear formulation of spatial thinking competencies and 

definition of key indicators; develop frameworks to measure spatial reasoning rather than factual recall 

• Create platforms for schools to exchange experiences and design examples based on practical 

interventions 

For Publishers: 

• Include age-appropriate examples of problem-based, multi-factorial tasks in textbooks, along with 

maps and visual analytical resources 

• Develop supplementary materials that support spatial thinking development 

For Teacher Training: 

• Prioritize intervention strategies based on design research foundations and SPBL model mastery in 

teacher training programs 

• Support teachers in developing skills for creating and adapting spatial problem-solving tasks 

For Schools: 

• Ensure all students have access to visual materials and opportunities to practice spatial interpretation 

skills; create supportive environments for spatial problem-solving 

• Address absenteeism issues that particularly affect cumulative skill development 

This research confirms that spatial thinking-based learning is possible; it requires only the right 

approach, consistent intervention, and strong theoretical foundations that provide subject-oriented and 

critical thinking-oriented teaching and learning. 

Competing interests 

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 

Authors’ contribution 

M.R. conceived the study, designed the research methodology, and took the lead in writing the 

manuscript. M.M. facilitated the implementation of the research intervention and assisted in the data 

validation process. Both authors have read and approved the final manuscript. 

ORCID iD 

Manana Ratiani https://orcid.org/0009-0006-6368-427X  

Reference 

Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? 

Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813 

Avtandilashvili, G., Medzmariashvili, E., Elizbarashvili, N., & Topchishvili, R. (2018). Our Georgia.  Clio 

Bakker, A. (2018). Design research in education: A practical guide for early career researchers. Routledge. 

Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20(6), 481–486. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01386.x 

Buckley, J., Seery, N., & Canty, D. (2018). A heuristic framework of spatial ability: A review and synthesis of 

spatial factor literature to support its translation into STEM education. Educational Psychology Review, 

30(4), 947–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9432-z 

Fiveable. (2024, August 20). Spatial thinking and geographic reasoning. https://fiveable.me/social-studies-

education/unit-8/spatial-thinking-geographic-reasoning/study-guide/wT03EuVeoe4nEI34 

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01386.x
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9432-z
https://fiveable.me/social-studies-education/unit-8/spatial-thinking-geographic-reasoning/study-guide/wT03EuVeoe4nEI34
https://fiveable.me/social-studies-education/unit-8/spatial-thinking-geographic-reasoning/study-guide/wT03EuVeoe4nEI34


Ratiani & Madzgharashvili. 2025 5(2) 

67 
 

Gersmehl, P. J., & Gersmehl, C. A. (2011). Spatial thinking by young children: Neurologic evidence for early 

development and "educability." Journal of Geography, 109(4), 181–191. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00221340903409510 

Ministry of Education (MoE). (2018). National Curriculum of Georgia. Tbilisi. 

National Geographic Society. (n.d.). Geography Standard 1. Retrieved from 

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/geography-standard-1/ 

National Research Council. (2006). Learning to Think Spatially. The National Academies Press. 

Drafting and editing supported by OpenAI ChatGPT-4, June 2025. https://chat.openai.com 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00221340903409510
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/geography-standard-1/
https://chat.openai.com/

