• Gokhan OzdemirEmail author


This mixed-method research attempted to clarify the role of visuospatial abilities in learning about mineralogy. Various sources of data—including quantitative pre- and postmeasures of spatial visualization and spatial orientation tests and achievement scores on six measures and qualitative unstructured observations, interviews, and field trip notes—were utilized to document the abilities and learning of 27 university students. Results indicated that (a) some students had initial difficulty with certain visual concepts, such as 3D crystal models, symmetry elements, mirror symmetry, rotation, inversion, and combination of symmetry elements while they were learning about mineralogy; (b) learning about mineralogy and spatial ability are two interrelated components; while the mineralogy course improved students’ spatial ability, their existing spatial abilities had a strong influence on facilitating mineralogy learning; and (c) spatial visualization skill is a better predictor of mineralogy achievement than spatial orientation skill. While the discussions highlighted the role of visuospatial thinking in learning about mineralogy, it is argued that researchers and curriculum developers should focus on the productive role of visuospatial thinking in learning about science.

Key words

chemistry and geology education mineralogy learning science education visualization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barke, H. D., & Engida, T. (2001). Structural chemistry and spatial ability in different cultures. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 2, 227–239.Google Scholar
  2. Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B., & Silberstein, J. (1988). Theories, principles and laws. Education in Chemistry, 25, 89–92.Google Scholar
  3. Carter, C. S., LaRussa, M. A., & Bodner, G. M. (1987). A study of two measures of spatial ability as predictors of success in different levels of general chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 727–737.Google Scholar
  4. Christman, R. A. (1965). A relief model for teaching topographic counters. Journal of Geological Education, 13(4), 113–114.Google Scholar
  5. Coleman, S., & Gotch, A. (1998). Spatial perception skills of chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 75, 206–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90, 1073–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Copolo, C. F., & Hounshell, P. B. (1995). Using three-dimensional models to teach molecular structures in high school chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4, 295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Manual for kit of factor referenced cognitive tests. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  10. Furio, C., Calatayud, M. L., Barcenas, S. L., & Padilla, O. M. (2000). Functional fixedness and functional reduction as common sense reasoning in chemical equilibrium and in geometry and polarity of molecules. Science Education, 84, 545–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gabel, D. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 233–248). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. W. (1995). Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25, 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  15. Gilbert, J. K. (2003). On the contribution of diagrams to learning and to assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  16. Habraken, C. L. (1996). Perceptions of chemistry: Why is the common perception of chemistry, the most visual of sciences, so distorted? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 5, 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 701–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kali, Y., & Orion, N. (1996). Spatial abilities of high school students in the perception of geologic structures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 369–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keig, P. F., & Rubba, P. A. (1993). Translation of representation of the structure of matter and its relationship to reasoning, gender, spatial reasoning, and specific prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 883–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Knight, D. (1996). Illustrating chemistry. In B. Baigrie (Ed.), Picturing knowledge: Historical and philosophical problems concerning the use of art in science (pp. 135–163). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  21. Krajcik, J. S. (1991). Developing students’ understanding of chemical concepts. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science: International perspective on the psychological foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 117–145). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Levin, T., & Wagner, T. (2009). Mixed-methodology research in science education: Opportunities and challenges in exploring and enhancing thinking dispositions. In M. C. Shelley II, L. D. Yore & B. Hand (Eds.), Quality research in literacy and science education: International perspectives and gold standards (pp. 213–243). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lord, T. R. (1985). Enhancing the visuo-spatial aptitude of students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mathewson, J. H. (1999). Visual–spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators. Science Education, 83, 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Muehlberger, W. L., & Boyer, R. E. (1961). Space relations test as a measure of visualization ability. Journal of Geological Education, 9, 62–69.Google Scholar
  26. National Research Council. (2006). Learning to think spatially: GIS as a support system in the K-12 curriculum. Washington, DC: National Academies.Google Scholar
  27. Piburn, M. D. (1980). Spatial reasoning as a correlate of formal thought and science achievement for New Zealand students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17, 443–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Piburn, M. D. (1992). Meta-analytic and multivariate procedures for the study of attitude and achievement in science. Paper presented at the International Council of Association for Science Education, Dortmund, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  29. Piburn, M. D., Reynolds, S. J., McAuliffe, C., Leedy, D. E., Birk, J. P., & Johnson, J. K. (2005). The role of visualization in learning from computer-based images. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 513–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reynolds, S. J., Piburn, M. D., Leedy, D. E., McAuliffe, C., Birk, J. P., & Johnson, J. K. (2006). The hidden earth: Interactive, computer-based modules for geoscience learning. In C. Manduca & D. Mogk (Eds.), Earth and mind: How geologists think and learn about the Earth (pp. 157–170). Boulder: Geological Society of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rigney, J. W., & Lutz, K. A. (1976). Effect of graphic analogies of concepts in chemistry on learning and attitude. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 305–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seddon, G. M., & Eniaiyeju, P. A. (1986). The understanding of pictorial depth cues and the ability to visualize the rotation of three-dimensional structures in diagrams. Research in Science and Technological Education, 4, 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shubbar, K. E. (1990). Learning the visualization of rotations in diagrams of three dimensional structures. Research in Science and Technological Education, 8, 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Small, M. Y., & Morton, M. E. (1983). Research in college science teaching: Spatial visualization training improves performance in organic chemistry. Journal of College Science Teaching, 13, 41–43.Google Scholar
  35. Staver, J. R., & Jacks, T. (1988). The influence of cognitive reasoning level, cognitive restructuring ability, disembedding ability, working memory capacity, and prior knowledge on students’ performance on balancing equations by inspection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 763–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stieff, M., Stillings, N., Arasasingham, R., Taagepera, M., & Wamser, C. (2004). Characterizing chemistry problem solving with convergent approaches from chemistry, education, and psychology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
  37. Talley, L. H. (1973). The use of three-dimensional visualization as a moderator in the higher cognitive learning of concepts in college level chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 10, 263–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Treagust, D. F., & Chittleborough, G. (2001). Chemistry: A matter of understanding representations. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Subject-specific instructional methods and activities (Vol. 8, pp. 239–267). New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tuckey, H., Selvaratnam, M., & Bradley, J. (1991). Identification and rectification of student difficulties concerning three-dimensional structures, rotation, and reflection. Journal of Chemical Education, 68, 460–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wu, H. K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 821–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Education, Department of Science EducationNigde UniversityNigdeTurkey

Personalised recommendations