Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEARNERS’ DISTRUST OF SCIENTIFIC MODELS, THEIR SPATIAL ABILITY, AND THE VIVIDNESS OF THEIR MENTAL IMAGES

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the current study was to examine the nature of the relationship between learners’ distrust of scientific models that represent unseen entities and phenomena, their spatial ability, and the vividness of their mental images. The sample consisted of 302 tenth grade students in the Sultanate of Oman. Three measures were used for this study: the Epistemologies about the Credibility of Scientific Models instrument, the Water Level Task (WLT), and the Vividness of Microscopic Mental Images. It was found that students’ distrust was greater for theoretical and abstract models such as the electron clouds, photons, magnetic lines of force, DNA, electron transfer, atomic orbits, and alpha rays. The findings also show that there was a statistically significant negative correlation between students’ distrust of scientific models and their spatial ability, as indicated by their performance on the WLT. There was a positive relationship between the distrust of scientific models and the vividness of mental images and a weak negative relationship between spatial ability and the vividness of mental images. Based on the findings, it might be plausible to conclude that as the abstraction level for scientific models increases, such as for theoretical models which lack defined structure and known details, imaginative learners’ difficulty to construct colorful and detailed mental images for natural entities and phenomena increases. It would also be recommended that learners with vivid mental images should be provided with and directed to use more spatial techniques such as computerized visualization tools and mental manipulation of 3D objects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackermann, E. K. (1991). From de-contextualized to situated knowledge: Revisiting Piaget’s water-level experiment. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 367–379). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Balushi, S. M. (2009). Factors influencing pre-service science teachers’ imagination at the microscopic level in chemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(6), 1089–1110. doi:10.1007/s10763-009-9155-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Balushi, S. M. (2011). Students’ evaluation of the credibility of scientific models that represent natural entities and phenomena. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(3), 571–601. doi:10.1007/s10763-010-9209-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, A. A. (2005). Spatial ability and earth science conceptual understanding. Journal of Geosciences Education, 53(4), 402–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, C. W. (1994). Think-aloud methods in chemistry education: Understanding student thinking. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(3), 184–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucat, B. & Mocerino, M. (2009). Learning at the sub-micro level: Structural representations. In J. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 11–30). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

  • 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, 24(7), 645–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clements, D. H. (1998). Geometric and spatial thinking in young children. ERIC document reproduction service, no. ED 436232.

  • Coll, R. & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Learners’ mental models of chemical bonding. Research in Science Education, 31, 357–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, M., Wiebe, E. N. & Carter, G. (2008). The influence of prior knowledge on viewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations. Science Education, 92, 848–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A. & Cullin, M. J. (2004). Supporting prospective teachers’ conceptions of modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1379–1401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czolpinski, A. & Babul, A. (2005). The art of physics: Visualizing the universe, seeing the unseen. Pi in the Sky, 9, 4–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidowitz, B. & Chittleborough, G. (2009). Linking the macroscopic and sub-microscopic levels: Diagrams. In J. Gilbert & D. F. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representation in chemical education (pp. 169–191). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

  • Diezmann, C. M. & Watters, J. J. (2000). Identifying and supporting spatial intelligence in young children. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(3), 299–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gericke, N. M. & Hagberg, M. (2007). Definition of historical models of gene function and their relation to students’ understanding of genetics. Science Education, 16, 849–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S. W. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 73–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. & Reiner, M. (2000). Thought experiments in science education: Potential and current realisation. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobert, J. D. & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gooding, D. C. (2004a). Cognition, construction and culture: Visual theories in the sciences. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4(3), 551–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gooding, D. C. (2004b). Envisioning explanations—The art in science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 29(3), 279–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E. & Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conception of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halloun, I. A. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science Education, 16, 653–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, D. F. (1986). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S. & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8(1), 1–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. G. & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80(5), 509–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. G. & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty, M. (2004). Mechanical reasoning by mental simulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(6), 280–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y. & Orion, N. (1996). Spatial abilities of high-school students in the perception of geologic structures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(4), 369–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M. & Mayer, R. (1999). Students’ use of imagery in solving qualitative problem in kinematics. ERIC document reproduction service, no. ED 433239.

  • Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M. & Mayer, R. (2002). Revising the visualize–verbalizer dimension: Evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition and Instruction, 20(1), 47–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozhevnikov, M., Kosslyn, S. M. & Shepard, R. N. (2005). Spatial versus object visualizers: A new characterization of visual cognitive style. Memory & Cognition, 33, 710–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozhevnikov, M., Motes, M. A. & Hegarty, M. (2007). Spatial visualization in physics problem solving. Cognitive Science, 31, 549–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121–145). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Li, C. (2000). Instruction effect and developmental levels: A study on water-level task with Chinese children ages 9–17. Contemporary Education Psychology, 25, 488–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, C. (2001). Why do Chinese students perform well on spatial tasks? Chinese teachers’ perspective. ERIC document reproduction service no. ED 459414.

  • Linn, M. C. & Petersen, A. C. (1986). A meta-analysis of gender differences in spatial ability: Implications for mathematics and science achievement. In J. S. Hyde & M. C. Linn (Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 67–101). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, C. & Treagust, D. F. (2005). An instrument for assessing students’ mental state and learning environment in science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 625–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohman, D. F. (1993). Spatial ability and G. Paper presented at the First Spearman Seminar, University of Plymouth, UK, July.

  • Lord, T. (1985). Enhancing the visuo-spatial aptitude of students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5), 395–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, T. (1990). Enhancing learning in the life sciences through spatial perception. Innovative Higher Education, 15(1), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, T. & Nicely, G. (1997). Does spatial aptitude influence science–math subject preferences of children? Journal of Elementary Science Education, 9(2), 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, D. (1972). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 64, 17–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathewson, J. H. (1999). Visual–spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators. Science Education, 83, 33–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of National Economy (2004, January). Distribution of population by region. Census 2003 Bulletin, pp. 8–28.

  • Naveh, D. (1985). Holistic education in action: An exploration of guided imagery in a middle grade science class and its impact on students. Retrieved 7 October 2008 from ProQuest database: http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/search.

  • Ozmen, H., Demircioglu, G. & Coll, R. (2009). A comparative study of the effects of a concept mapping enhanced laboratory experience on Turkish high school students’ understanding of acid–base chemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascual-Leone, J. & Morra, S. (1991). Horizontality of water level: A neo-Piagetian developmental review. In I. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 231–276). New York, NY: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pribyl, J. R. & Bodner, G. M. (1987). Spatial ability and its role in organic chemistry: A study of four organic courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 229–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulos, S. (1997). Explicit knowledge of gravity and the water-level task. Learning and Individual Differences, 9(3), 233–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiner, M. (2008). The nature and development of visualization: A review of what is known. In J. Gilbert, M. Reiner & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 25–27). New York, NY: Springer.

  • Reiner, M. & Gilbert, J. (2000). Epistemological resources for thought experimentation in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 489–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, G. E. (1994). Introduction of coordination, solid state, and descriptive inorganic chemistry. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, A. G. & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76(6), 559–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V. (1998). Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, California, USA.

  • Seng, A. S. & Tan, L. C. (2002, April). Cultural and gender differences in spatial ability of young children. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Childhood Education, San Diego.

  • Shepard, R. (1988). The imagination of the scientist. In K. Egan & D. Nadaner (Eds.), Imagination and education (pp. 153–185). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J., Scott, L. & Duveen, J. (1996). Large-scale exploration of pupils’ understanding of the nature of science. Science Education, 80(5), 493–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stieff, M. & Raje, S. (2010). Expert algorithmic and imagistic problem solving strategies in advanced chemistry. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 10, 53–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. D. & Mamiala, T. L. (2004). Students’ understanding of the descriptive and predictive nature of teaching models in organic chemistry. Research in Science Education, 34, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasa, R. & Liben, L. (1996). The water-level task: An intriguing puzzle. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 171–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velez, M. C., Silver, D. & Tremaine, M. (2005). Understanding visualization through spatial ability differences. Paper presented at the IEEE Visualization, Minneapolis, October.

  • Vos, W. & Verdonk, A. H. (1996). The particulate nature of matter in science education and in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 657–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C.-Y. & Barrow, L. (2010). Characteristics and levels of sophistication: An analysis of chemistry students’ ability to think with mental models. Research in Science Education, 41(4), 561–586. doi:10.1007/s11165-11010-19180-11167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, T. & Scott, J. (1987). Analytic and modes of learning family resemblance concepts. Memory & Cognition, 15, 42–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H., Krajcik, J. S. & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting conceptual understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H. & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88, 465–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, E., Andre, T., Greenbowe, T. J. & Tibell, L. (2003). Spatial ability and the impact of visualization/animation on learning electrochemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 329–349.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman

    Sulaiman M. Al-Balushi

Authors
  1. Sulaiman M. Al-Balushi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sulaiman M. Al-Balushi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Al-Balushi, S.M. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEARNERS’ DISTRUST OF SCIENTIFIC MODELS, THEIR SPATIAL ABILITY, AND THE VIVIDNESS OF THEIR MENTAL IMAGES. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 11, 707–732 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9360-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9360-1

KEY WORDS

Search

Navigation