Exploring Verbal, Visual and Schematic Learners' Static and Dynamic Mental Images of Scientific Species and Processes in Relation to Their Spatial Ability

Abstract

The current study compared different learners' static and dynamic mental images of unseen scientific species and processes in relation to their spatial ability. Learners were classified into verbal, visual and schematic. Dynamic images were classified into: appearing/disappearing, linearmovement, and rotation. Two types of scientific entities and their related processes were investigated: astronomical and microscopic. The sample included 79 female students from Grades 9 and 10. For the purpose of the study, three instruments were used. The Mental Images by Guided Imagery instrument was designed to investigate participants' visualization of static and dynamic mental images. The Water-Level Task was adopted to estimate participants' spatial ability. The Learning Styles Inventory was used to classify participants into verbal, visual and schematic learners. The research findings suggest that schematic learners outperformed verbal and visual learners in their spatial ability. They also outperformed them in their vividness of microscopic images; both micro-static and micro-dynamic images; especially in the case of appearing/disappearing images. The differences were not significant in the case of astronomical images. The results also indicate that appearing/disappearing images received the least vividness scores for all three types of learners.

Students' mind wandering in macroscopic and submicroscopic textual narrations and its relationship with their reading comprehension

“…Also, the presence of difficult, new and/ or low frequency words within the text is associated with longer gaze durations and leads to longer total inspection times (Sereno and Rayner, 2003;Smallwood et al, 2008;Foulsham et al, 2013), contributing to a slower reading pace (Foulsham et al, 2013) and worse reading comprehension (Smallwood et al, 2008). They are more abstract (Gericke and Hagberg, 2007;Al-Balushi, 2011, 2013bAl-Balushi and Coll, 2013;Taber, 2013), less frequently encountered by learners than macroscopic description of natural phenomena and they represent more difficult concepts than macroscopic words (Sanger et al, 2013;Kelly, 2014;Milenković et al, 2014;Prilliman, 2014;Ryan and Herrington, 2014;Sjöström and Talanquer, 2014;Warfa et al, 2014). They are more abstract (Gericke and Hagberg, 2007;Al-Balushi, 2011, 2013bAl-Balushi and Coll, 2013;Taber, 2013), less frequently encountered by learners than macroscopic description of natural phenomena and they represent more difficult concepts than macroscopic words (Sanger et al, 2013;Kelly, 2014;Milenković et al, 2014;Prilliman, 2014;Ryan and Herrington, 2014;Sjöström and Talanquer, 2014;Warfa et al, 2014).…”

“…However, we did not know, before the results of the current View Article Online study, whether this unfamiliarity and cognitive load were at the level that would lead one type of text to have a greater mindwandering effect than the other. Previous research reveals that not everybody can imagine submicroscopic entities and their dynamic interactions (Al-Balushi, 2009;Al-Balushi and Coll, 2013). Obviously, these cognitive demands are not necessarily at the same extensive level when dealing with macroscopic entities and processes.…”

“…Collectively, the research results discussed above reveal that learners' cognitive processing and conceptualization of entities and phenomena at the macroscopic and submicroscopic levels in chemistry are related to the level of abstractness (Gericke and Hagberg, 2007;Al-Balushi, 2011, 2013bAl-Balushi and Coll, 2013;Taber, 2013), cognitive load (Cranford et al, 2014;Gulacar et al, 2014;Springer, 2014), learners' estimation of size and scale at both levels (Tretter et al, 2006;Jones and Taylor, 2009;Jones et al, 2011) learners' distrust of the existence of scientific entities (Al-Balushi, 2011, 2013b and spatial ability required (Carter et al, 1987;Pribyl and Bodner, 1987;Yang et al, 2003;Wu and Shah, 2004;Wang and Barrow, 2011). Due to the differences between macroscopic and submicroscopic levels, the current study focuses on finding whether mind wandering can be added to the list of these differences (mentioned above) and eventually contributes to our interpretations of students' comprehension.…”

Concrete Model VS Virtual Model: Roles and Implications in Chemistry Learning

“…Virtual media is a computerized three-dimensional visualization medium. This media emerged as a result of technological developments that support chemistry learning (Al-Balushi & Coll, 2013;Antonoglou, Charistos, & Sigalas, 2011;Barrett et al, 2015;Stull et al, 2013). The use of virtual media supports the understanding of the process of manipulating one or more representations into another, visualizing the forces or interactions between molecules during a chemical process, and predicting the products resulting from a reaction (Al-Balushi & Al-Hajri, 2014;Stieff et al, 2005).…”

The Effect of e-Learning Strategy at Primary School Level on Understanding Structure and States of Matter

“…Research has shown that students do not connect their observations on a macro level with explanations on the submicro level, which leads to developing ideas on their own, mostly the wrong ones (Barke, Hazari, & Yitbarek, 2009). Submicroscopic concepts are invisible and more abstract than macroscopic, which makes them challenging and difficult to grasp (Al-Balushi, 2013;Al-Balushi, 2011;Al-Balushi & Coll, 2013;Gericke & Hagberg, 2007;Taber, 2013). Akaygun and Jones (2013) concluded that visualisation of the particulate level can improve students' learning, especially when using computer animations of particles, which can help students to better visualise the PNM (Chang, Quintana, & Krajcik, 2010) and enhance their conceptual understanding (Ardac & Akaygun, 2004).…”