Abstract
The purpose of the present study was twofold: (1) to examine the mediator effects of imagination between learning environment and academic performance, and (2) to compare differences between the environment–imagination–performance structural models of science and engineering majors. A survey was administered at eight universities across different regions of Taiwan. The participants in this study were divided into two groups. The first group consisted of 529 science majors, whereas the second group consisted of 523 engineering majors. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to confirm the structure of the measures employed in this study. A structural equation modeling was used to test all the hypotheses proposed. With respect to the science group, our results showed that, through the mediation of imagination, learning resources had a dominant impact on academic performance, whereas both human aggregate and organizational measure had moderate influences. In contrast, among the engineering group, both human aggregate and social climate had relatively strong effects on academic performance, whereas both learning resources and organizational measure had mild influence. These findings seem promising enough to warrant further inquiry. They also provide insights for fields in which imaginative talent and creative performance are essential. Finally, practical applications of the present study were suggested, limitations were acknowledged, and future research was discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, W. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2011). Development and validation of instruments to measure learning of expert-like thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 33(9), 1289–1312.
Allendoerfer, C., Wilson, D., Bates, R., Crawford, J., Jones, D., Floyd-Smith, T., et al. (2012). Strategic pathways for success: The influence of outside community on academic engagement. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 512–538.
Association, American. College. Personnel. (1994). The student learning imperative: Implications for student affairs. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association.
Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Susanmosborg, J. T., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–379.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. W. (1982). Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(3), 459–489.
Beaney, M. (2005). Imagination and creativity. Milton Keynes: Open University.
Bond, C. E., Philo, C., & Shipton, Z. K. (2011). When there isn’t a right answer: Interpretation and reasoning, key skills for twenty-first century geo-science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 629–652.
Bultitude, K., & Sardo, A. M. (2012). Leisure and pleasure: Science events in unusual locations. International Journal of Science Education, 34(18), 2775–2795.
Büscher, M., Eriksen, M. A., & Kristensen, J. F. (2004). Ways of grounding imagination. Retrieved December 26, 2012, from http://www.daimi.au.dk/Workspace/site/content/heading_07/papers/PDC2004.pdf.
Bybee, R. W. (2011). Scientific and engineering practices in K-12 classrooms: Understanding “A framework for K-12 science education”. Science Scope, 35(4), 6–11.
Cartwright, P., & Noone, L. (2006). Critical imagination: A pedagogy for engaging pre-service teachers in the university classroom. College Quarterly, 9(4). Retrieved February 15, 2012, from http://www.senecac.on.ca/quarterly/2006-vol09-num04-fall/cartwright_noone.html. Accessed December 15, 2012.
Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self report data really that bad? In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 309–335). New York, NY: Routledge.
Charyton, C., Jagainski, R. J., Merrill, J. A., Clifton, W., & Dedios, S. (2011). Assessing creativity specific to engineering with the revised creative engineering design assessment. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), 778–799.
Charyton, C., & Merrill, J. A. (2009). Assessing general creativity and creative engineering design in first year engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(2), 145–156.
Chen, S.-C., Huang, Y., & Liang, C. (2012). The combined effects of learning environment and personality traits on student imagination. Instructional Technology and Media, 102, 62–78.
Chen, S.-F., Lin, C.-Y., Wang, J.-R., Lin, S.-W., & Kao, H.-L. (2013). A Cross-grade comparison to examine the context effect on the relationships among family resources, school climate, learning participation, science attitude, and science achievement based on TIMSS 2003 in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 34(14), 2089–2106.
Coeckelbergh, M., & Wackers, G. (2007). Imagination, distributed responsibility and vulnerable technological systems: The case of Snorre A. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(2), 235–248.
Daly, S. R., Yilmaz, S., Christian, J. L., Seifert, C. M., & Gonzalez, R. (2012). Design heuristics in engineering concept generation. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 601–629.
Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289–2315.
Esolen, A. (2010). Ten ways to destroy the imagination of your child. Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute.
Folkmann, M. N. (2010, November 29-December 1). Enabling creativity. Imagination in design processes. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Design Creativity ICDC 2010, Kobe, Japan.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
French, B. F., Immekus, J. C., & Oakes, W. C. (2005). An examination of indicators of engineering students’ success and persistence. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(4), 419–425.
Genco, N., Hölttä-Otto, K., & Seepersad, C. C. (2012). An experimental investigation of the innovation capabilities of undergraduate engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 60–81.
Gislason, N. (2010). Architectural design and the learning environment: A framework for school design research. Learning Environments Research, 13(2), 127–145.
Goertzen, R. M., Brewe, E., & Kramer, L. (2013). Expanded markers of success in introductory university physics. International Journal of Science Education, 35(2), 262–288.
Gralewski, J., & Karwowski, M. (2012). Creativity and school grades: A case from Poland. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(3), 198–208.
Grindstaff, K., & Richmond, G. (2008). Learners’ perceptions of the role of peers in a research experience: Implications for the apprenticeship process, scientific inquiry, and collaborative work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), 251–271.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Hamza, K. M., & Wickman, P.-O. (2013). Supporting students’ progression in science: Continuity between the particular, the contingent, and the general. Science Education, 97(1), 113–138.
Holton, G. (1998). Scientific imagination: With a new introduction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.
Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education, 91(1), 36–74.
Kember, D., Ho, A., & Hong, C. (2010). Characterising a teaching and learning environment capable of motivating student learning. Learning Environments Research, 13(1), 43–57.
Lawson, A. E. (2010). Basic inferences of scientific reasoning, argumentation, and discovery. Science Education, 94(2), 336–364.
Lewis, S. E., & Lewis, J. E. (2008). Seeking effectiveness and equity in a large college chemistry course: An HLM investigation of peer-led guided inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 794–811.
Liang, C., Chen, S.-C., & Huang, Y. (2012a). Awaken imagination: Effects of learning environment and individual psychology. Journal of Information Communication, 3(1), 93–115.
Liang, C., Hsu, Y., Chang, C–. C., & Lin, L.-J. (2012b). In search of an index of imagination for virtual experience designers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,. doi:10.1007/s10798-012-9224-6.
Lichtenstein, G., McCormick, A. C., Sheppard, S. D., & Puma, J. (2010). Comparing the undergraduate experience of engineers to all other majors: Significant differences are programmatic. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(4), 305–317.
Lin, C–. C., & Tsai, C–. C. (2009). The relationships between students’ conceptions of learning engineering and their preferences for classroom and laboratory learning environments. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(2), 193–204.
Liu, E., & Noppe-Brandon, S. (2009). Imagination first: Unlocking the power of possibilities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83–104.
Madden, D. S., Grayson, D. J., Madden, E. H., Milewski, A. V., & Snyder, C. A. (2012). Apprenticeships, collaboration and scientific discovery in academic field studies. International Journal of Science Education, 34(17), 2667–2678.
Maerten-Rivera, J., Myers, N., Lee, O., & Penfield, R. (2010). Student and school predictors of high-stakes assessment in science. Science Education, 94(6), 937–962.
Maeyer, J., & Talanquer, V. (2010). The role of intuitive heuristics in students’ thinking: Ranking chemical substances. Science Education, 94(6), 963–984.
Naderi, H., Abdullah, R., Aizan, H. T., Jamaluddin, S., & Mallan, K. (2009). Gender differences in creative perceptions of undergraduate students. Journal of Applied Sciences, 9(1), 167–172.
National Society of Professional Engineers. (2006). Frequently asked questions about engineering. Retrieved 2011-01-30, http://www.nspe.org/Media/Resources/faqs.html.
Oliveira, S. E., & Sadler, J. E. (2008). Interactive patterns and conceptual convergence during student collaborations in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 634–658.
Peşman, H., & Özdemir, Ö. F. (2012). Approach-Method Interaction: The role of teaching method on the effect of context-based approach in physics instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 34(14), 2127–2145.
Peterson, M. W., & Spencer, M. G. (1990). Understanding academic cultures and climate. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Assessing academic climates and cultures (pp. 3–18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Petroski, H. (2010). Engineers and scientists: Similarities and differences. The Bent of tau Beta Pi, C1(3), 22–26.
Poser, H. (1998). On structural differences between science and engineering. Philosophy and Technology, 4(2), 81–92.
Reichling, M. J. (1990). Images of imagination. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38(4), 282–293.
Roehrig, G. H., Kruse, R. A., & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 883–907.
Sampson, V., & Walker, J. P. (2012). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate students write to learn by learning to write in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1443–1485.
Stone, M. (2010). Imagination in science. Yale Scientific Magazine, 83.3, Access December 25, 2012: http://www.yalescientific.org/2010/10/from-the-editor-imagination-in-science/.
Strange, C. C. (2003). Dynamics of campus environments. In S. R. Komives & D. B. Woodard Jr (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (4th ed., pp. 297–316). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Strange, C. C., & Banning, J. H. (2001). Educating by design: Creating campus learning environments that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Swirski, T. (2010). Unleashing the imagination in learning, teaching and assessment: Design perspectives, innovative practices and meaning making. Paper presented at the ATN Assessment Conference. Australia: Australian Technology Network.
Taylor, A. R., Jones, M. G., Broadwell, B., & Oppewal, T. (2008). Creativity, inquiry, or accountability? Scientists’ and teachers’ perceptions of science education. Science Education, 92(6), 1058–1075.
Turns, J., Eliot, M., Neal, R., & Linse, A. (2007). Investigating the teaching concerns of engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 295–308.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7-97. Retrieved December 10, 2012, from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2008_03.dir/att-0189/Vygotsky__Imag___Creat_in_Childhood.pdf.
Walczyk, J. J., Ramsey, L. L., & Zha, P. (2007). Obstacles to instructional innovation according to college science and mathematics faculty. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 85–106.
Wood, N. B., Lawrenz, F., & Haroldson, R. (2009). A judicial presentation of evidence of a student culture of “dealing”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 421–441.
Acknowledgments
The current study is part of the research Project (NSC102-2511-S-002-009-MY2) supported by Taiwan’s National Science Council. The authors would like to acknowledge Wei-Sheng Lin for his valuable contributions in statistical analysis. The authors would also like to extend their gratitude to the insightful suggestions of anonymous International Journal of Technology and Design Education reviewers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hsu, MC., Chiang, C. & Liang, C. The mediator effects of imagination between learning environment and academic performance: a comparison between science and engineering majors. Int J Technol Des Educ 24, 419–436 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9262-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9262-3