• Sulaiman M. Al-BalushiEmail author


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.


concrete–abstract continuum credibility levels distrust of scientific models imagination natural entities spatial ability vividness of mental images 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Black, A. A. (2005). Spatial ability and earth science conceptual understanding. Journal of Geosciences Education, 53(4), 402–414.Google Scholar
  5. Bowen, C. W. (1994). Think-aloud methods in chemistry education: Understanding student thinking. Journal of Chemical Education, 71(3), 184–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clement, J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clements, D. H. (1998). Geometric and spatial thinking in young children. ERIC document reproduction service, no. ED 436232.Google Scholar
  10. Coll, R. & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Learners’ mental models of chemical bonding. Research in Science Education, 31, 357–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crawford, B. A. & Cullin, M. J. (2004). Supporting prospective teachers’ conceptions of modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1379–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Czolpinski, A. & Babul, A. (2005). The art of physics: Visualizing the universe, seeing the unseen. Pi in the Sky, 9, 4–8.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Diezmann, C. M. & Watters, J. J. (2000). Identifying and supporting spatial intelligence in young children. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(3), 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilbert, S. W. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilbert, J. & Reiner, M. (2000). Thought experiments in science education: Potential and current realisation. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gooding, D. C. (2004a). Cognition, construction and culture: Visual theories in the sciences. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4(3), 551–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gooding, D. C. (2004b). Envisioning explanations—The art in science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 29(3), 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Halloun, I. A. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science Education, 16, 653–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Halpern, D. F. (1986). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harrison, A. G. & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hegarty, M. (2004). Mechanical reasoning by mental simulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(6), 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M. & Mayer, R. (1999). Students’ use of imagery in solving qualitative problem in kinematics. ERIC document reproduction service, no. ED 433239.Google Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kozhevnikov, M., Motes, M. A. & Hegarty, M. (2007). Spatial visualization in physics problem solving. Cognitive Science, 31, 549–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Li, C. (2001). Why do Chinese students perform well on spatial tasks? Chinese teachers’ perspective. ERIC document reproduction service no. ED 459414.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lohman, D. F. (1993). Spatial ability and G. Paper presented at the First Spearman Seminar, University of Plymouth, UK, July.Google Scholar
  40. Lord, T. (1985). Enhancing the visuo-spatial aptitude of students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5), 395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lord, T. (1990). Enhancing learning in the life sciences through spatial perception. Innovative Higher Education, 15(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lord, T. & Nicely, G. (1997). Does spatial aptitude influence science–math subject preferences of children? Journal of Elementary Science Education, 9(2), 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marks, D. (1972). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 64, 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mathewson, J. H. (1999). Visual–spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators. Science Education, 83, 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ministry of National Economy (2004, January). Distribution of population by region. Census 2003 Bulletin, pp. 8–28.Google Scholar
  46. 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:
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pulos, S. (1997). Explicit knowledge of gravity and the water-level task. Learning and Individual Differences, 9(3), 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.Google Scholar
  52. Reiner, M. & Gilbert, J. (2000). Epistemological resources for thought experimentation in science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 489–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rodgers, G. E. (1994). Introduction of coordination, solid state, and descriptive inorganic chemistry. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  54. Ryan, A. G. & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76(6), 559–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schwarz, C. V. (1998). Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, California, USA.Google Scholar
  56. 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.Google Scholar
  57. 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
  58. Solomon, J., Scott, L. & Duveen, J. (1996). Large-scale exploration of pupils’ understanding of the nature of science. Science Education, 80(5), 493–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stieff, M. & Raje, S. (2010). Expert algorithmic and imagistic problem solving strategies in advanced chemistry. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 10, 53–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vasa, R. & Liben, L. (1996). The water-level task: An intriguing puzzle. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Velez, M. C., Silver, D. & Tremaine, M. (2005). Understanding visualization through spatial ability differences. Paper presented at the IEEE Visualization, Minneapolis, October.Google Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ward, T. & Scott, J. (1987). Analytic and modes of learning family resemblance concepts. Memory & Cognition, 15, 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wu, H. & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88, 465–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sultan Qaboos UniversityMuscatOman

Personalised recommendations