JAMES H. MATHEWSON
Department of Chemistry, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA
ABSTRACT: Thinking with images plays a central role in scientific creativity and com-
munication but is neglected in science classrooms. This article reviews the fundamental
role of imagery in science and technology and our current knowledge of visual-spatial
cognition. A novel analogic and thematic organization of images and visualization within
science and technology is proposed that can help in the generation and evaluation of
classroom activities and materials, and serve as a focus for professional development
programs in visual-spatial thinking for science teachers. Visual-spatial thinking includes
vision— using the eyes to identify, locate, and think about objects and ourselves in the
world, and imagery— the formation, inspection, transformation, and maintenance of im-
ages in the “mind’s eye” in the absence of a visual stimulus. A spatial image preserves
relationships among a complex set of ideas as a single chunk in working memory, increas-
ing the amount of information that can be maintained in consciousness at a given moment.
Vision and imagery are fundamental cognitive processes using specialized pathways in
the brain and rely on our memory of prior experience. Visual-spatial thinking develops
from birth, together with language and other specialized abilities, through interactions
between inherited capabilities and experience. Scientific creativity can be considered as
an amalgam of three closely allied mental formats: images; metaphors; and unifying ideas
(themes). Combinations of images, analogies, and themes pervade science in the form of
“master images” and visualization techniques. A critique of current practice in education
contrasts the subservient role of visual-spatial learning with the dominance of the alpha-
numeric encoding skills in classroom and textbooks. The lack of coherence in curriculum,
pedagogy, and learning theory requires reform that addresses thinking skills, including
imagery. Successful integration of information, skills and attitudes into cohesive mental
schemata employed by self-aware human beings is a basic goal of education. The current
attempt to impose integration using themes is criticized on the grounds that the required
underpinning in cognitive skills and content knowledge by teachers and students may be
absent. Teaching strategies that employ visual-spatial thinking are reviewed. Master im-
ages are recommended as a novel point of departure for a systematic development of
programs on visual-spatial thinking in research, teacher education, curriculum, and class-
room practice. 䉷 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 83:33– 54, 1999.
THE PROBLEM
Science teachers universally complain about the failure of students to demonstrate some
expected fundamental understanding or skill that is needed to embark on a new topic or
activity. Often the prior knowledge about the subject exhibited by students is flawed and
refractory. An example is the appreciation of the nature of shadows, reflections, relative
motion, and frame-of-reference orientation necessary to explore the phases of the moon
(Taylor, 1996). The example I have cited involves visual-spatial thinking and learning1
Richly illustrated texts, TV, multimedia, visual computer interfaces and “hands-on” activ-
ities of all sorts makes demands on the capacity of students to observe, form mental images,
and analyze depictions and displays. Schools — that is, teachers, curricula and texts — are
curiously indifferent to this dimension although there have been some efforts to alert the
professional community (Arnheim, 1969; Holton, 1965; Lord, 1987; McCormack, 1988;
Willows & Houghton, 1987). Mathematics educators have rediscovered the value of vi-
sualization and now use illustrations, manipulatives, and even video games (Clements &
Battista, 1992; Emmer, 1993; Loeb, 1992; Steen, 1990). Geographers have pursued re-
search programs on understanding maps and developed some thorough analyses of the
cognitive basis of the use of visual displays (MacEachren, 1995).
VISUAL-SPATIAL THINKING
A discussion of visual-spatial thinking and learning must start with definitions of vision
and imagery. There is, of course, a very long history and a vast literature on this subject.
Current research is extensive and often contentious. I will attempt here to create a synopsis
that can be used in this discussion of visual-spatial learning in science education.
Part of what we perceive comes through our senses from the object before us, another part
(and it may be the larger part) always comes out of our mind. (p. 196)
1 There is some variation in the meaning of terms used in the literature on visual-spatial (also spelled vis-
uospatial) thinking. Vision refers to perception; visual-spatial thinking (or cognition, or intelligence), visual
thinking, spatial thinking, and imagery are used roughly synonymously for the mental visual images within
memory and higher level cognition. There is some ambiguity in the use of image to include (explicitly or
implicitly) portions of representations in perception and memory formed from other modalities such as hearing,
touch, taste, and smell. The term images also refers to varieties of depictions, graphic displays, and models.
Visualization retains its usual meanings in cognitive science, but also has been arrogated by science and tech-
nology to mean computer-generated displays of data or numerical models. Graphics now refers frequently to
the technology of computer displays as well as depictions. Imaging is used for the technology of indirect sensing
and display in such applications as medical tomography.
VISUAL-SPATIAL THINKING 35
Various kinds of optical illusions can serve to convince us that we construct our views
of reality from within. We all have unconscious and unavoidable perceptual bias. Never-
theless, most of what we see of the so-called “real” or objective world is remarkably
accurate, which bestows a strong adaptive advantage. For example, discerning movement
against a background and perceiving location using depth perception can help us hunt or
avoid danger. An image has the advantage of an immediate, global and integrated package
of information that cannot be constructed as rapidly by touch, or by written or spoken
descriptions.
The nature of visual-spatial perception and cognition has been a central concern of
cognitive science (Churchland, 1995; Cornoldi & McDaniel, 1991; Gardner, 1985; Hamp-
son, Marks, & Richardson, 1990; Kosslyn, 1994; Kosslyn & Koenig, 1992; Marks, 1990;
Marr, 1982; Pinker, 1997; Posner & Raichle, 1994; Ullman, 1996). Mental “computa-
tional” processes seem to use both functional and physical (neuronal) networks distributed
over the whole brain but organized into task-specific modular units. A given task such as
vision will utilize a number of localized modules. The eye/brain system partitions signals
from the eyes into three kinds of image components: pattern (including shape, depth, and
texture); color (hue, value and saturation); and movement (Hubel, 1988; Potegal, 1982;
Rock, 1995; Scientific American, 1986, 1992; Wandell, 1995). The primitive perceptual
components are assembled in stages or “sketches” into a three-dimensional mental repre-
sentation. Cognitive science has retained the classic intuitive sense of an interplay between
internal templates and external inputs voiced by William James, bolstered now with mod-
ern empirical evidence:
Current theories of visual perception suggest that the detection and recognition of objects
involves the continuous interchange of perception and comprehension of the external
world. That is, there is a constant interplay between perception and cognition rather than
a single step in which neural signals are integrated into a visual image somewhere in the
visual cortex. Hence, it is no longer possible to separate the mechanisms of detection,
recognition and interpretation of visual images. Instead these processes must be considered
as a single interactive process in which the acquisition of visual information is integrated
with recognition and interpretation, and even consciousness. (Hendee, 1997, p. 154)
The brain has two halves which share structural and functional characteristics, but which
also display functional asymmetry. Visual perception and some imagery processing such
as fixing relative location are concentrated in the right hemisphere, whereas other image-
generating processes such as identifying structural features are dependent on the left hemi-
sphere. This specialization, called “cerebral laterization,” is not absolute but one of relative
efficiency and remains incompletely characterized and understood (Goldenberg, Podreka,
& Steiner, 1990; Intons-Peterson & McDaniel, 1991; Kosslyn & Koenig, 1992; Ornstein,
1997; Richardson, 1991). Laterality has been a popular subject leading to suggestions for
some teaching strategies (Williams, 1986) and analyses of learning dysfunction (Kosslyn
& Koenig, 1992; West, 1991).
Human Abilities
Vision is an early and general biological adaptation in evolution. Primates (including
humans) have evolved a set of mental tools for coordinating, storing, and using sensory
information, and a number of mental capacities or “intelligences” to orchestrate behavior
including spatial ability (Deacon, 1997; Gardner, 1983; Perkins, 1995; Sternberg & Kauf-
man, 1998). Each “tool” in this battery of abilities imparts an independently selected
36 MATHEWSON
advantage which modern humans have more or less integrated into a universal adaptability
(Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby, 1992; Deacon, 1997; Pinker 1997). Individuals with es-
pecially high visual-spatial abilities are called “high imagers” (Katz, 1987) or “strong
visualizers” (Sommer, 1978). Tests and measurements for visual-spatial capacity have a
long history, but questions concerning the nature of what is being measured remain un-
resolved by psychometricians (Eliot & Smith, 1983; Gardner, 1993; Lohman, 1994; Per-
kins, 1995). Factor analysis can be used to demonstrate several components to
visual-spatial abilities that strongly interrelate and correlate with a general intelligence
(“g”). Performance on spatial tasks improves substantially with training and practice. Re-
cently, Neisser (1997) has speculated that the measurable rise in general intelligence scores
all over the globe (the Flynn effect) is due to the gradual increase in the variety and
common use of visual media. A fundamental picture emerges of human abilities with both
contextual domain-specific components and an underlying unitary capacity to understand
and learn.
Memory
The prior knowledge upon which cognition depends requires a mechanism for encoding
experience, that is, memory (Baddeley, 1990). Multiple perceptual pathways (“modalities”)
and multiple abilities imply multiple loci for memory including an image memory bank,
a linguistic storage, and traces of auditory and kinesthetic experience. For the strong vi-
sualizers, memory for pictures may be better than memory for words which describe the
same object or event. Whether unitary or modularized, memory is the foundation of learn-
ing, and we cannot take the visual-spatial aspects of training and education for granted.
Although various abilities can be evaluated separately, optimal learning and behavior re-
quires their coordination. The scrambling or “short circuiting” of associated memories
observed in pathological conditions such as synesthesia suggest how fundamental our
cognitive integrating mechanisms must be. In the contrasting condition of dyslexia, as-
sociations of sounds and written words are formed with difficulty in spite of generally
strong imagery capabilities (Kosslyn & Koenig, 1992; West, 1991). Autism (Grandin,
1996) carries a similar reliance on imagery.
Learning
The current literature in education describes learning as the conscious and unconscious
“construction” of coherent mental “frames” or “schemas” that serve as expanding and
modifiable frameworks for “assimilating” new information and as the locus for “accom-
modating” discrepant or entirely novel experience through a “restructuring” of schemas
(Anderson, 1990; Lawson, 1994; Loucks-Horsley, 1990; Resnick, 1983; Tobin, Tippins,
& Gallard, 1994). A salient feature of this theory (constructivism) is a description of
learning as an self-activating response to challenges, dissonance, or discrepancy rather
than a purely passive encoding of experience. The development of teaching strategies
that are designed to uncover and recruit (or supplant) prior knowledge has been a par-
ticularly useful consequence of constructivist research (Carey, 1986; Clement et al., 1989;
Sandoval, 1995). The origin of the constructivist model is usually attributed to the de-
velopmental psychologist, Jean Piaget, who lived from 1896 to 1980 (Case, 1991; Good
Mellon, & Kromhout, 1978; Gruber & Vonèche, 1977; Piaget, 1952; Pratt & Garton,
1993).
Piaget laid the foundations for our views of the development of visual-spatial thinking
VISUAL-SPATIAL THINKING 37
in children nearly 50 years ago (Piaget & Inhelder, 1956, 1971; Piaget, Inhelder, & Szem-
inska, 1960). Piaget’s views were biased toward a genetically programmed model in which
behaviors emerge at characteristic developmental stages, with the capacity to engage in
higher order thinking developing later than modern research suggests. The prominence of
prior knowledge in both the classical and current models of visual-spatial cognition dove-
tails with the constructivist learning models and with the recently revived views on the
importance of the social milieu in the construction of knowledge (Bruner, 1996; Vygotsky,
1978). Ironically, Piaget did not write much about educational practice, unlike his contem-
porary, Lev S. Vygotsky (also born in 1896, but died in 1934). In any event, visual-spatial
thinking is so fundamental that it must be addressed at the practical level whatever the
learning organization and practice in the classroom may be.
IMAGERY IN SCIENCE
The Visual Imagination
Gerald Holton has distilled the essence of scientific creativity into three closely allied
mental formats: images; metaphors; and themes (Holton, 1996):
For while logic, experimental skill, and mathematics are constant guides, they are by no
means adequate to the task of scientific investigation— otherwise a computer could do
original research unaided. When you listen at the keyhole of the laboratory door, you find
that the scientist uses a variety of tools as well . . . three closely related companions that
are rarely acknowledged: the visual imagination, the metaphoric imagination, and the
thematic imagination. (p. 78)
Perhaps the most important influence spatial skills can exert on thinking is through
analogy. The essence of spatial image is that it is a relation preserving cognitive structure.
Many complex relationships among elements are contained in a line drawing or in a spatial
image. Relationships among a complex set of ideas can be maintained as a single chunk
in working memory in a single image, thereby substantially increasing the amount of
organized information that can be maintained in an active state at a given moment. Thus,
when used analogically, spatial images can substantially improve our ability to think about
and to communicate complex ideas. (Lohman, 1987, p. 269)
In many (perhaps most) past and present concepts, methods and propositions or hypotheses
of science, there are elements that function as themata, sometimes guiding (normalizing)
or polarizing the scientific community. (Holton, 1986b, p. 8)
Themes are categorical; that is, they are classifications. They reflect the fundamental
proclivity toward classification or categorization found in all humans from primitive people
to scientists (Rosch, 1978). Because thinking with images, or comparisons, or intercon-
nections is so basic, it is hard to come up with “pure” examples; for instance, a visual
representation in science free of analogy. In fact, the strength of the coupling between
these aspects of cognition suggests we are dealing with fundamental mechanisms of higher
order thinking.
Abstract images can take on characteristics of real objects, and eventually come to be
viewed as uncontested facts. . . . The power of such master images to popularize theory
is clear. (MacEachren, 1995, p. 455)
TABLE 1
Master Images of Science
TABLE 2
Visualization in Science
thinking? The current status of visual-spatial learning in the schools must be considered
first.
derstanding. Charles Dickens evokes memories of this predilection in the second chapter
of David Copperfield (1941 [1850]):
This may be fancy, though I think the memory of most of us can go further back into such
times than many of us suppose; just as I believe the power of observation of very young
children to be quite wonderful for its closeness and accuracy. Indeed, I think that most
grown men who are remarkable in this respect, may with greater propriety be said not to
have lost the faculty, than to have acquired it; the rather, as I generally observe such men
to retain a certain freshness, and gentleness, and capacity of being pleased, which are also
an inheritance they have preserved from their childhood.
Most children in elementary schools are starting their education with a visual-spatial
orientation, which should be encouraged and utilized in learning rather than supplanted in
the push to inculcate the alphanumeric skills of “literacy” and “numeracy.” At its best,
education enables integration of personal abilities and knowledge into effective behavior.
Mental images are coherent encodings of experience that rival language as integrative
cognitive functions and modes of further learning. The period of plasticity in childhood
during which language development flourishes and second languages can be acquired
should also include visualization. Gardner (1982) describes a “golden” window of oppor-
tunity between the ages of 5 and 7 for visual-spatial activity. There are scattered sugges-
tions that making drawings is useful in science education, but the only visual method that
receives much attention is the special case of “concept mapping” (Hyerle, 1996; Novak,
1990).
A particularly striking example of the primacy of language over image is the requirement
for words (except in very special cases) in searches for images in libraries and on the
internet (Rasmussen, 1998). Historical attempts at generating a universal metric for images
have failed. Cognitive scientists, artifical intelligence experimenters, and information dis-
play engineers have uncovered many of the components of images that enable visual
perception (Marr, 1982; Pinker, 1997; Ullman, 1996; Wandell, 1995), but have come to
realize the incredible complexity of vision and imagery. Mental images are, in many
respects, sui generis, and therefore need there own educational space (Arnheim, 1969).
Teaching strategies should foster a balance between the use of language and image by the
learner.
ods for dealing with English as a second language, and glossaries, dictionaries, and
encyclopedias in classrooms provide available supports. Vocabulary building, writing,
reading, and analysis of narratives builds skills in the use of words. However, preparatory
exercises for visual-spatial material and explanations of illustrations and diagrams that
coach the students in using the visual-spatial domain are rare. Traditionally, the skillful
use of images develops in subjects such as art, geography, geometry, mechanical drawing,
and science laboratories. These subjects tend to be marginalized in curricular restructuring.
The development of visual-spatial analogs to language instruction should be strongly en-
couraged.
Textbook Codependence
Education depends on texts at all levels and, in modern science classes, there is a reliance
on kits as well. School districts and states adopt texts for the K – 12 “market,” not teachers.
This places substantial influence in the hands of publishers and media producers. Because
so much classroom and independent time is spent with vicarious and passive learning
environments, it is important to examine carefully not only the language of texts and media
materials, but the visual quality as well.
The critical parameter is the ability of the teacher to bring visual-spatial resources into
the classroom, use them effectively and sensitively, and monitor the results regardless of
the pedagogical approach. Elaborately illustrated books, overhead projector transparencies,
videos, CDs, and computer programs are produced in abundance, but the merits of the
visual-spatial aspects have been taken for granted or judged inexpertly by most users. A
scattered literature and expertise on visual communication exists in a variety of fields such
as advertising, artificial intelligence, cartography, cognitive science, computer graphics,
design, educational technology, information science, industrial psychology (human/ma-
chine interfacing), science illustration, and so on (Hall, 1992; MacEachren, 1995; Tufte,
1983, 1990, 1997). The national education reform programs should consider projects for
evaluating the merits of classroom visual-spatial material and activities that can pull to-
gether these scattered resources.
Modern texts designed for science courses are usually copiously and elegantly illus-
trated, and often supplemented with overhead projector transparencies for the teacher.
Large numbers of well-illustrated “trade books” are available for the primary and second-
ary learner. But, in many texts designed for the schools, the information is poorly gener-
alized, inappropriately phrased, and simplified to the point of triviality; it is stripped of
detail, richness, and sometimes accuracy. Often “catchy” examples of phenomena are used
which are special, obscure, or unrepresentative cases. The quality of diagrams and illus-
trations suffer from the same deficits. Scientific depictions will have unexplained scale
expansions or contractions, for example, and “preloading” with tacit conventions for co-
ordinates, color codes, symbols, and perspectives. Illustrations, maps, or graphs with very
poor visual construction and appeal, even when the content is correctly depicted, will not
support learning (MacEachren, 1995). At the other extreme, the aura of authenticity and
authority conveyed by very elaborate and colorful illustrations, but with erroneous content,
are especially invidious, because they will reinforce flawed or incomplete prior knowledge.
A striking illustration or video may capture the attention of students to the exclusion of
learning the associated language, or the visual-spatial material may be ignored or avoided
as confusing, obscure, or irrelevant.
In most textbooks, and often in electronic media, the student encounters several illus-
trations about the same topic, each employing a different dimension of visual-spatial think-
ing. In teaching about form versus function, an illustration of a structure frequently
44 MATHEWSON
The need for schemas from the educational perspective derives from a new view of com-
petency and expertise. It comes about in part because of a loss of faith in the prevailing
view of learning. In the view that has been dominant in the past (and that is now rapidly
falling from favor), learning was the accretion of many small and individual pieces of
knowledge. Most educators now believe that mastery of a domain involves more than this,
that mastery occurs when an individual has acquired a coherent and unified body of knowl-
edge about the domain and can use this knowledge productively. (p. 395)
ample, the use of magnifying lenses, telescopes, microscopes, stethoscopes, and other
techniques provides challenging and intriguing encounters with perceptual extension. The
correspondence of categories in both Tables 1 and 2 to unifying ideas and operations in
mathematics provides an opportunity to use the tables in activities designed to bring science
and math together (Rutherford, 1997). The following sections outline some additional
recommendations for visual-spatial teaching.
Visual-Spatial Exercises
Visual-spatial learning can start with the development of visual-spatial self-awareness
and metacognitive visual skills through some direct experience with physiological visual
processes such as focus, resolution, peripheral vision, color, and optical illusions (Gardner,
1982; Kelsey, 1997; Schaefer, 1995; Wandell, 1995). Good examples of activities are
available (Cassidy, 1991; DiSpezio, 1995). Age-appropriate exercises with shadows, mir-
rors, mazes, hidden figures, mental rotations, etc., can prepare the student to use obser-
vation and imagery in all subjects including science. McCormack (1988) recommends the
use of manipulatives such as blocks common in the activity sets developed in the 1960s
for children in elementary schools. The use of visual materials and imagery in education
requires some consideration of separating aptitude from achievement. Various measures
of visual-spatial abilities normally used as aptitude tests such as maze traversal, figure
rotations, or surface development are appropriate as a sources for the aforementioned
exercises or for research.
Skill in using visual-spatial thinking can be enhanced using exercises (Lord, 1985). The
understanding of a cross-section, topographic map, or circuit diagram is not automatic,
even when the information carried in the depictions has already been explored verbally or
explained in a text. Some well-known curricula explore visual conventions in challenging
ways such as the use of circuit diagrams in the ESS unit, “Batteries and Bulbs” (Elementary
Science Study, 1968). Children should be encouraged to depict their perceptions of natural
objects and events in drawings and diagrams (Glynn & Duitt, 1995). In an approach similar
to vocabulary building, students can maintain imagery journals or portfolios to record
confusions, insights, visual conventions, and usage encountered in illustrations and dia-
grams. Search projects that are inherently visual-spatial, using sources such as the National
Geographic and the “Science in Pictures” section of the Scientific American, might be
assigned. Eventually, categories of imagery such as symmetry can be developed in a
thematic approach. By Nature’s Design (Murphy & Neill, 1993), from the Exploratorium
in San Francisco, is an especially elegant example of a thematic trade book.
Active Learning
Schools today must compete with very dynamic and colorful communication media for
the attention of students. Perhaps this was always true when one compares events in a
“real” world with classrooms, however well equipped (Holton, 1965). Organized learn-
ing — schools, texts, materials, activities — can combat the “unreality” of the classroom
by avoiding passivity and taking every opportunity to engage the students in hands-on
activities (National Research Council, 1996). Direct experience provides a rich “situation”
in which the learner may be able to take advantage of cognitive integration, employing
multiple inputs from different perceptual pathways — visual, auditory, tactile, kinesthetic,
and sometimes olfactory — to construct mental connections and reinforcements (Anderson,
Reder, & Simon, 1996). The sustained challenge of physical materials creates the precon-
dition of some mental impasse or imbalance that leads to construction of knowledge.
VISUAL-SPATIAL THINKING 47
Passive listening and reading is a less effective learning environment, especially for
younger children, because continuous focus and attention is more difficult. Experiential
lessons may fail for the same reason if a student’s mind is not engaged in creating a
multifaceted schema and the teacher is not guiding the process effectively (National Re-
search Council, 1996; Tobin, Tippins, & Gallard, 1994).
Visual Analogy
Instructional analogies are frequently used in science education (Dagher, 1995). An
example is the use of fictitious scale changes to visualize relative dimensions: “If the
average atom were the size of a football field, the nucleus would be the size of a grain of
sand on the 50-yard line. A nucleus is so dense that, at that scale, the sand grain would
weigh ten million tons. This is why we say that matter is mostly empty space.” Analogic
thinking and visualization seem to lie at the base of effective problem-solving skills (Kauf-
mann, 1990; Marshall, 1995). Because the practice of science and technology requires skill
in problem solving and the use of mathematical representations, the development of these
abilities is fundamental in science education.
We become accustomed to using the common analogs of a familiar arena such as the
sciences unconsciously, and may fail to appreciate that a novice may not be able to read
that particular “language.” For example, in the physical sciences a diagram showing energy
“levels” will usually depict higher potential energies above lower states using a vertical
scale; “higher” and “lower” are actually metaphors for our somatic perceptions derived
from living and thinking in a gravitational field. In a turnabout, oceanographers depict
variations in seawater variables (e.g., temperature) with the surface values at the top of
the diagram and deeper values toward the bottom (of the page, or the ocean). The use of
analogy can be an educational pitfall. When an analogy is used it is important not only to
draw the parallel, but to be explicit about the ways in which the analogy fails (Dagher,
1995; Treagust, Venville, & Harrison, 1995). As noted earlier, popular thinking transmutes
analogic depictions into images of real objects and eventually into uncontested facts.
Assessment
Methods and standards of assessment are inseparable from any consideration of content,
pedagogy, or teacher development in science education (National Research Council, 1996).
Thematic, analogic, and visual-spatial thinking are higher order cognitive abilities that
cannot be assessed by most common practices such as recall tests, labeling, and traditional
word problems (Doran, Lawrenz, & Helgeson, 1994). The need for authentic assessment
dictates that the use of visual-spatial methods in assessment should accompany the use of
visualization and imagery in instruction. The general availability of computers with pow-
erful graphics clearly invites the use of visual methods in assessment as well as instruction.
An assessment prompt displayed in color, and moving, is far more evocative than a con-
ventional paper test. Science tests should use illustrations liberally. The traditional labeling
of a diagram (organism cross section, machine, chemical structures, etc.) can serve as a
tool for evaluating the interconnections between vocabulary and image, but it remains a
superficial substitute for the assessment of in-depth understanding of essentially visual-
spatial relationships. For example, demonstrating an understanding of the symmetry op-
erations that are possible for a three-dimensional model of a molecule, and explaining how
the chemical properties correlate with the structure, shows understanding beyond the level
of terminology.
48 MATHEWSON
Computers
The advent of the graphic user interface for personal computing stations and easy access
to international communication networks that are increasingly visual has started an imagery
revolution in classrooms (Glennan & Melmed, 1996; Klein, 1985; Papert, 1980, 1993;
U.S. Department of Education, 1996). The use of computers, motion pictures, videos, and
now CD-ROM discs provides an effective alternative instruction and assessment domi-
nated by text. But, computers cannot substitute for pedagogical skill and content knowl-
edge in the teacher any better than texts and activity kits.
Computer activities can be used to teach problem solving, schema construction, and
visual-spatial thinking as a content-independent procedural skill (McClurg & Chaillé,
1987). Some schools have tapped into the variety of images available on web sites. It is
salutary to find earth sciences and astronomy taught with the powerful images from the
Hubble telescope and the weather service. We have now entered a new era in computer-
enhanced visualization within the scientific enterprise itself with the universal use of com-
puters and microprocessors for data acquisition and analysis (Friedhoff & Benzon, 1989;
Hall, 1992). The rapid progress in imaging programs enables supercomputers to reduce a
large volume of data or a complex numerical model to an image that moves and is color-
coded. Very frequently, the trained observer will see relationships in the visual represen-
tation that are otherwise obscure. These research programs are now entering classrooms
and interactive exhibits at museums and “exploratoriums” where their power for teaching
as well as research becomes evident.
coherence and integration in all aspects of science education, including visual-spatial learn-
ing, will evolve with reforms in science education.
During the preparation of this study, the author received support from Project VISTA, directed by
Dr. Alan McCormack and Dr. Cheryl Mason, San Diego State University Center for Research in
Mathematics and Science Education. Their hospitality and patience were greatly appreciated. Advice
and encouragement from Dr. Sue Mathewson and Dr. Michael Seitz are gratefully acknowledged.
Portions of this work were presented at the Sixth Annual Conference, Program for Teacher En-
hancement in Science and Technology, University of California, San Diego, July 9, 1996.
REFERENCES
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications (3rd ed.). New York: W. H.
Freeman.
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational
Researcher, 18, 32– 41.
Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.). (1992). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology
and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
California State Board of Education. (1990). Science framework for california public schools. Sac-
ramento, CA: California Department of Education.
Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41, 1123–1130.
Case, R. (Ed.) (1991). The mind’s staircase: Exploring the conceptual; underpinnings of children’s
thought and knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cassidy, J. (1991). Explorabook: A kids’ science museum in a book. Palo Alto, CA: Klutz Press.
Churchland, P. M. (1995). The engine of reason, the seat of the soul. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.),
Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 420–464). New York: Mac-
millan.
Clement, J. M., Brown, D. E., & Zeitman, A. (1989). Not all preconceptions are misconceptions:
Finding ‘anchoring conceptions’ for grounding instruction on students’ intuitions. International
Journal of Science Education, 11, 554– 565.
Cornoldi, C., & McDaniel, M. A. (Eds.). (1991). Imagery and cognition. New York: Springer.
Dagher, Z. B. (1995). Review of studies on the effectiveness of instructional analogies in science
education. Science Education, 79: 295– 312.
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason and the human brain. New York: Putnam.
Darius, J. (1990). Scientific images: Perception and deception. In H. Barlow, C. Blakemore, & M.
Weston-Smith (Eds.), Images and understanding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species: The coevolution of language and the brain. New York:
Norton.
de Broglie, L. (1946). Matter and light. New York: Dover.
Dickens, C. (1941 [1850]). David Copperfield. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.
DiSpezio, M. (1995). Visual foolery! Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Doran, R. L., Lawrenz, F., & Helgeson, S. (1994). Research on assessment in science. In D. L.
Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 388–442). New York:
Macmillan.
Eisenberg, A. (1992). Metaphor in the language of science. Scientific American, 266: 144.
Elementary Science Study. (1968). Batteries and bulbs. St. Louis, MO: McGraw-Hill.
VISUAL-SPATIAL THINKING 51
Eliot, J., & Smith, I. M. (1983). An international directory of spatial tests. Windsor, UK: NFER-
Nelson.
Emmer, M. (1993). The visual mind: Art and mathematics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ferguson, E. S. (1977). The mind’s eye: Nonverbal thought in technology. Science, 197, 827–836.
Friedhoff, R. M., & Benzon, W. (1989). The second computer revolution: Visualization. New York:
Abrams.
Gardner, H. (1982). Art, mind, and brain. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1985). The mind’s new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic
Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Glennan, T. K., & Melmed, A. (1996). Fostering the use of educational technology: Elements of a
national strategy. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Glynn, S., & Duitt, R. (1995) Learning science meaningfully: Constructing conceptual models. In
S. Glynn & R. Duitt (Eds.), Learning science in the schools (pp. 247–273). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goldenberg, G., Podreka, I., & Steiner, M. (1990). The cerebral localization of visual imagery. In
P. J. Hampson, D. F. Marks, & J. T. E. Richardson (Eds.), Imagery: Current developments (pp.
307– 332). London: Routledge.
Good, R., Mellon, E. K., & Kromhout, R. A. (1978). The work of Jean Piaget. Journal of Chemical
Education, 55, 688– 693.
Grandin, T. (1996). Thinking in pictures and other reports from my life with autism. New York:
Doubleday.
Gruber, H. E. (1995). Insight and affect in the history of science. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson
(Eds.), The nature of insight. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gruber, H. E., & Vonèche, J. J. (1977). The essential Piaget. New York: Basic Books
Hall, S. S. (1992). Mapping the next millennium: The discovery of new geographies. New York:
Random House.
Hampson, P. J., Marks, D. F., & Richardson, J. T. (Eds.). (1990). Imagery: Current developments.
London: Routledge.
Hendee, W. R. (1997). Cognitive interpretation of visual signals. In W. R. Hendee & P. N. T. Wells
(Eds.), The perception of visual information (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Holton, G. (1965) Conveying science by visual presentation. In G. Kepes (Ed.), Education of vision
(pp. 50– 77). New York: George Braziller.
Holton, G. (1986a). Metaphors in science and education. In G. Holton (Ed.), The advancement of
science, and its burdens (pp. 229– 252). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Holton, G. (1986b). Thematic presuppositions and the direction of scientific advance. In G. Holton
(Ed.), The advancement science, and its burdens (pp. 3–27). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Holton, G. (1988). Thematic origins of scientific thought (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Holton, G. (1996). Einstein, history and other passions. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hubel, D. H. (1988). Eye, brain and vision. New York: Scientific American Library.
Hyerle, D. (1996). Visual tools for constructing knowledge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Su-
pervision and Curriculum Development.
Intons-Peterson, M. J., & McDaniel, M. A. (1991). Symmetries and asymmetries between imagery
and perception. In C. Cornoldi & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.), Imagery and cognition (pp. 47–76).
New York: Springer.
James, W. (1984 [1892]). Psychology: The briefer course. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Katz, A. N. (1987). Individual differences in the control of imagery processing: Knowing how,
knowing when, and knowing self. In M. A. McDaniel & M. Pressley (Eds.), Imagery and related
mnemonic processes: Theories, individual differences, and applications. New York: Springer.
52 MATHEWSON
Perkins, D. (1995). Outsmarting IQ: The emerging science of learnable intelligence. New York: Free
Press.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans.). New York: International
Universities Press.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1956). The child’s conception of space. (F. J. Langdon & J. L.. Lunzer,
Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original French edition, 1948)
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1971). Mental imagery in the child: A study of the development of imaginal
representations. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J., Inhelder, B., & Szeminska, A. (1960). The child’s conception of geometry (E. A. Lunzer,
Trans.). New York: Basic Books. (Original French edition, 1948)
Pick, H. L. & Rieser, J. J. (1982). Children’s cognitive mapping. In M. Potegal (Ed.), Spatial abilities:
Development and physiological foundations (pp. 107–128). New York: Academic Press.
Pinker, St. (1997). How the mind works. New York: Norton.
Posner, M. I., & Raichle, M. E. (1994). Images of mind. New York: Scientific American Library.
Potegal, M. (Ed.). (1982). Spatial abilities: Development and physiological foundations. New York:
Academic Press.
Pratt, C., & Garton, A. F. (1993). Systems of representation in children: Development and use.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Rasmussen, E. A. (1998). Indexing images. In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information
science and technology, (vol. 32). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
Resnick, L. B. (1983). Mathematics and science learning: A new conception. Science, 220, 477–
478.
Richardson, J. T. E. (1991). Imagery and the brain. In C. Cornoldi & M. A. McDaniel (Eds.). Imagery
and cognition. New York: Springer.
Rock, I. (1995). Perception. New York: Scientific American Library.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and
categorization (pp. 27– 48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rutherford, F. J. (1997). Thinking quantitatively about science. In L. A. Steen (Ed.), Why numbers
count: Quantitative literacy for tomorrow’s America. New York: College Entrance Examination
Board.
Sandoval, J. (1995). Teaching in subject matter areas: Science. Annual Review of Psychology, 46,
355– 374.
Schaefer, J. (1995). Sight unseen: The art of active seeing. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Scientific American (1986). The mind’s eye: Readings from Scientific American. New York: W. H.
Freeman.
Scientific American. (1992, Sept.). Mind and brain. Scientific American (Special Issue), 267, 1992.
Siemankowski, F. T., & McKnight, F. C. (1971). Success prognostication in college science courses.
Journal of College Science Teaching, 1, 56–79.
Sommer, R. (1978). The mind’s eye: Imagery in everyday life. Palo Alto, CA: Dale Seymour.
Steen L. A. (Ed.) (1990). On the shoulders of giants: New approaches to numeracy. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (1998). Human abilities. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 479–
502.
Taylor, I. J. (1996). Illuminating lunar phases. The Science Teacher, 63, 39–41.
Tishman, S., Perkins, D. N., & Jay, E. (1995). The thinking classroom. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching
science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45–
93). New York: Macmillan.
Treagust, D. F., Venville, G., & Harrison, A. (1995, April). The development and evaluation of
approaches for the effective use of analogies in science teaching. San Francisco, CA: American
Educational Research Association.
Tufte, E. R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Tufte, E. R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
54 MATHEWSON