Spatial ability has become a pivotal construct in technology-enhanced learning, yet its dual role as both a trainable skill and a performance-related individual difference remains insufficiently integrated in the literature. This study offers a systematic synthesis that brings together these complementary perspectives on spatial ability in technology-enhanced learning. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, 310 Web of Science-indexed peer-reviewed journal articles were analyzed and coded according to technology type, disciplinary domain, participant profile, and the conceptual role assigned to spatial ability. Findings revealed that spatial ability was predominantly treated as a developable outcome, while a substantial body of research positioned it as an individual difference associated with learning performance. Immersive and 3D interactive environments emerged as the dominant technological context across both perspectives. Association analyses further revealed statistically significant associations between the conceptual role assigned to spatial ability and technology type, disciplinary domain, and participant profile. By integrating these two strands, this review offers an organizing framework for understanding the dual role of spatial ability as both an outcome and a condition of learning, with implications for adaptive and cognitively informed instructional design.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sacide Güzin Mazman (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: