Factors Influencing Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Imagination at the Microscopic Level in Chemistry

Abstract

This study explores the mental images at the microscopic level of matter created by 22 preservice science teachers in Oman. Participants were encouraged during a guided imagery session to construct mental images for a scenario written about the explanation of the reaction of sodium in water. They were then asked to describe what they envisioned in their own imagination. Participants had images that were based on textbook illustrations, modeling kits, a solar-system model, physical properties, and humanized animations. 3D mental images represented 33.36% of participants' mental images at the microscopic level, while images in 2D format formed 39.15% of the overall created mental images. Several factors shaped the participants' mental images, such as their imaginative ability, attention mode, and the nature of their old images stored in their long-term memory. Most of the participants experienced image transformation from one form to another as they were progressing in the GI session. This unstable reliance on different models might indicate unorganized conceptual networks in learners' LTM: a feature that characterizes novices' mental networking. On the contrary, past research has revealed that experts have more organized and sophisticated conceptual networking. This study argued that participants lacked the homogeneous and reliable mental model of the atom that is required to carry out advanced cognitive processes for mental exploration of chemical phenomena. The absence of this mental model might explain the overwhelming finding in literature that many learners fail to explain and predict chemical phenomena.

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

“…Al-Balushi (2009) reports that only a third of a sample of college students could create an image for a water molecule spinning on its own axis. In contrast, all of the participants in Al-Balushi's study managed to imagine still water molecules in one form or the other.…”

“…According to the literature, people's mental images range from photographic-type images with vivid details to sketchytype images which focus on spatial relations and rarely contain information about color or size. Remarkably, some individuals report no images at all (Reisberg & Heuer, 2005), and research indicates that these differences in learners' ability to engage in imagination affect their imagination of dynamic processes and of threedimensional microscopic entities (Al-Balushi, 2009;Kozhevnikov et al, 2002;Kozhevnikov, Kosslyn, & Shepard, 2005;Kozhevnikov, Motes, & Hegarty, 2007;Wang & Barrow, 2011). For instance, while learners with high imagination ability use three-dimensional images to visualize scientific processes, others learners rely on two-dimensional images, such as Lewis structures (Al-Balushi, 2009;Wang & Barrow, 2011).…”

“…According to the literature, an explanation of microscopic phenomena that does not involve the interactions between microscopic entities is classified as alternative conceptions or misconceptions (see Haidar & Abraham, 1991;Harrison & Treagust, 1996Johnstone, 2000). Therefore, imagining the interactions between unseen entities becomes an essential element for students' success in science (Al-Balushi, 2009;Mathewson, 1999;Shepard, 1988;Stieff, Hegarty, & Dixon, 2010;Yair, Schur, & Mintz, 2003). However, past research suggests that students face conceptual difficulties with natural dynamic interactions (Day, 2004;Ozmen, Demircioglu, & Coll, 2009;Treagust, Chittleborough, & Mamiala, 2003Vos & Verdonk, 1996;Williamson & Abraham, 1995;Yair et al, 2003).…”

“…However, past research suggests that students face conceptual difficulties with natural dynamic interactions (Day, 2004;Ozmen, Demircioglu, & Coll, 2009;Treagust, Chittleborough, & Mamiala, 2003Vos & Verdonk, 1996;Williamson & Abraham, 1995;Yair et al, 2003). Al-Balushi (2009) reports that dynamic microscopic interactions are harder to imagine than static microscopic images, even for college students. When they are asked to imagine various dynamic movements at the particulate level of matter, few students manage to do so.…”

“…Although dynamic and Learners' Static and Dynamic Mental Images 461 static mental images have received some attention in science education research (e.g. Al-Balushi, 2009;Bogacz & Trafton, 2005;Freyd, 1987;Gill, O'Boyle, & Hathaway, 1998;Hegarty, 1992;Reisberg & Heuer, 2005), some issues have not been examined extensively. Examples of these issues are types of learners who manage to construct dynamic mental images for unseen scientific species and processes, and whether the imagination of dynamic processes differs according to the types of unseen species (e.g.…”