CISC125 CISC CISC

CISC1.

2. CISC

misconception

analogical instruction

88 analogical

strategy mental model

mental image

spatial visualization

88

393

95 37 4 393 409

* 1.

2.

diagram graphical animation video

88

Barke & Engida, 2001

naive conceptions

scientific conceptualizations mental model

CISC

Barke & Engida, 2001 structural imagination

chemical symbols mediator

visualization

Concrete Image Spatial Concepts instructional

strategy ; CISC stereoscopic structure

model computer dynamic picture

1

82

CISC

85 Nicholson,

Seddon, & Worsnop, 1977

CISC

Sedden

Eniaiyeju Jusoh 1984 visualization of the

rotation operations

394

crystal structure

Zoller 1990

Gabel Sherwood 1980

Sedden 1984

82

Barke Engida 2001

stereoscopic structure model

Barke 1993

particulate model of matter CISC

Seddon Moore 1986

85 Bodner, Cutler, Greenbowe, & Robinson, 1984 ;

Rozzelle & Rosenfeld, 1985

10˚

85

animational instruction CISC

1

395CISI

82

stereochemistry

82

88

molecule model

Paivio 1986 Rohr & Reimann, 1998 representational formats

textual propositional representation

/ Newell 1982 Rohr & Reimann,

1998 animational instruction

ontological comprehence computational problem Talley 1973

Holford Kempa 1970

C I S C

macroscopic level

visual description

Berkely 1709 88

Goodman 1968

Gibson 1971

Kosslyn 1981

Kosslyn

396

Lohman 1979

spatial relations

Lohman 1988

mental rotation

Pellegrino Kail 1982

93

spatial orientation

Lohman 1988 perspective

spatial visualization

spatial visualization transformation

surface development paper folding

form borard test Lohman, 1988 Pellegrino Kail 1982

1. form borard

tests 2. punched holes tests

3. paper- folding or surfaces-

development tests Lohman 1988

CISC

Lohman

1. 2. 3.

84 Bishop, 1978 ; Siemonkowski &

Macknight, 1971 Lord, 1985 ; Pallrand & Seeber, 1984 ;

Siemonkowski & Macknight, 1971

84 Pribyl & Bodner , 1987

84

Shepard, 1978 Rochford 1987

Baker

Talley 1972 Pribyl Bodner 1987

Carter LaRussa Bonder 1987

397CISI

0.1~0.37 Baker Talley 1972

88

McGee 1979 Rochford 1987 88

Macnab Johnstone 1990 form recognition

orientation

Lord 1987

84 Pallrand &

Seeber, 1984

spatial ability CISC

1 CISC

2 CISC

1 CISC

2 CISC

1 CISC

2 CISC

125

67 58

CISC

T 9

1

398

1

N N

24 44 35.2% 35.2%

20

21 40 32% 67.2%

19

22 41 32.8% 100%

19

44 35.2% 35.2%

81 64.8% 100%

CISC

CISC

CISC CISC 2

CISC

T

Flash

1.

35

2

2

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 12

13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24 12

25,26,27,29,30 5

31,32,33,34,35,36 6

35

399CISI

2

2.

1 Cronbach’s

Cronbach’s .646 .819 Cronbach’s .843

3 Cronbach’s

400

3 Cronbach’s N =317

Cronbach’s .770 .819 .646 .843

2

N =36

.456~.805 .805

.473 .456 .798

3.

1

T1 T2

T3 T4 T5

T6 4

4

T1 1 3 5 7 9 11 6

T2 2 4 6 8 10 12 6

T3 13 15 17 19 21 23 6

T4 14 16 18 20 22 24 6

T5 25 27 29 31 33 35 5

T6 26 30 32 34 36 6

35

Principal Axis Factoring

varimax 5

.80 82.55%

5

401CISI

5 N =317

1 2 3

T1 .911 .127 .121

T2 .878 .222 .147

T3 .118 .904 .159

T4 .241 .879 .154

T5 .181 .086 .856

T6 .073 .210 .845

1.712 1.708 1.533

28.53% 28.46% 25.56%

82.55%

CISC

CISC CISC

CISC

CISC

CISC 3D

6

6

S1 X1 L1 S2

S1 Y1 L1 S2

S1 Y1 T1 S2

S1: S2:

X1: CISC Y1:

L1: T1:

CISC

CISC

402

F=1.793 p=.171 .05

F=1.866 p=.159 .05

8 F=6.033 p=.003 .05

CISC

CISC

Carter 1987

MR

7

44 30.16 3.249 31.41 3.426 30.616 a .552

40 29.00 4.255 27.80 5.511 27.899 a .574

41 28.15 6.710 28.07 6.440 28.829 a .571

125 29.13 4.958 29.16 5.457

44 30.16 3.249 31.41 3.426

81 28.57 5.615 27.94 5.963

8

SS df MS F P

158.965 2 79.483 6.033** .003

1594.204 121 13.175

109981.000 125

**p .01

9

CISC T

7

M =31.41 30.616 a M =27.80 27.899 a M =28.07 28.829

a CISC Bodner Guay

1997 Coleman Gotch 1998

403CISI

9 Pairwise Comparisons

95% a

I J I-J Pa

2.717* .797 .001 1.140 4.294

1.787* .799 .027 .205 3.369

-2.717* .797 .001 -4.294 -1.140

-.930 .809 .252 -2.531 .671

-1.787* .799 .027 -3.369 -.205

.930 .809 .252 -.671 2.531

*p .05

27%

F=.647 p=.529 .05

F=.411 p=.666 .05

10 F=1.217 p=.307 .05

CISC

CISC

10

SS df MS F P

17.583 2 8.792 1.217 .307

288.907 40 7.223

43149.000 44

CISC

CISC

1.

404

p=.003 .05

2. CISC

T

1. CISC

CISC CISC

Carter 1987

mental rotation

1.25

-1.20 -0.07 CISC

Bodner Guay 1997 Coleman Gotch 1998

MR CISC

CISC

1.

p=.307 .05

2.

CISC

1. CISC

CISC CISC

CISC

2. CISC

typology

coherence

CISC CISC

CISC CISC

3.

CISC

405CISI

CISC

1.

2.

CISC

3.

CISC

4.

T

T

93

84 3

1 23-68

88 44

1 2 31-59

84 40 509-548

82 1 2 161-188

88

85 189 14-35

Baker, S. R., & Talley, L. (1972). The relationship of visualization skills to achievement in freshman

chemistry. Journal of Chemistry Education, 49(11), 775-777.

Barke, H. D. (1993). Chemical education and spatial ability. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 968-971.

Barke, H. D., & Engida, T. (2001). Structural chemistry and spatial ability different cultures. Chemistry

406

Education: Research and practice in Europe, 2(3), 227-239.

Bishop, J. E. (1978). Developing students’ spatial ability. Science Teacher, 45(8), 20-23.

Bodner, G. M., & Guay, R. B. (1997). The purdue visualization of rotations test. The Chemical Educator,

2(4), 118.

Bodner, G. M., Cutler, A. R., Greenbowe, T. J., & Robinson, W. R. (1984) . Multi-images or lap-dissolve

slide techniques and visual images in the large lecture section. Journal of Chemical Education, 61(5),

447-449.

Carter, C. S., LaRussa, M. A., & Bonder, G. M. (1987). A study of two measures of spatial ability as

predictors of success in different levels of general chemisty. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

24(7), 645-657.

Coleman, S. L., & Gotch, A. J. (1998). Spatial perception skills of chemistry students. Journal of Chemical

Education, 75(2), 206-209.

Gabel, D. L., & Sherwood, R. D. (1980). The effect of student manipulateion of molecular model on

chemistry achievement according to piagetian level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(1),

75-81.

Gibson, E. J. (1971). The information available in pictures. Leonardo, 4, 27-35.

Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

Holford, D. G., & Kempa, R. F. (1970). The effectiveness of stereoscopic viewing in the learning of spatial

relationships in structural chemistry. Joural of Research in Science Teaching, 7(3), 265-270.

Kosslyn, S. M. (1981). Research on mental imagery: Some goals and direction. Cognition, 10, 173-179.

Lohman, D. F. (1979). Spatial abilities: A review and re-analysis of the correlateional literature (Technical

Report No. 8). Standford University, Aptitude Research project, Stanford, CA.

Lohman, D. F. (1988). Spatial abilities as traits, processes, and knowledge. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances

in the psychology of human intelligence 4 (pp. 181-248), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lord, T. R. (1985). Enhancing the visuo-spatial aptitude of students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

22(5), 395-405.

Lord, T. R. (1987). A look at spatial abilities in undergraduate women science majors. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 24(8), 757-767.

Macnab, W., & Johnstone, A. H. (1990). Spatial skills which contribute to competence in the biological

science. Journal of Biological Education, 24(1), 37-41.

McGee, M. (1979). Human spatial abilityies, psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and

neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 889-918.

Nicholson, J. R., Seddon, G. M., & Worsnop, J. G. (1977). Teaching the understanding of pictorial spatial

relationships to Nigerian secondary school students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 8, 401-

414.

Pallrand, G. J., & Seeber, F. (1984). Spatial ability and achievement in introductory physics. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 22(5), 507-516.

Pellegrino, J. W., & Kail, R. (1982). Process analysis of spatial aptitude. In R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Advances

in the psychology of human intelligence (vol 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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(3), 229-240.

407CISI

Rochford, K. (1987). Underachievement of spatially handicapped chemistry students in an academic support

program. Paper presented the staff of the Department of Education, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Rohr, M., & Reimann, P. (1998). Reasoning with multiple representations when acquiring the particulate

model of matter. In van M. W. Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. de. Jong (Eds.),

Advances in learning and instruction series learning with multiple representations (pp. 41-66).

Oxford, England: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Rozzelle, A. A., & Rosenfeld, S. M. (1985). Stereoscopic projection in organic chemistry: Bridging the gap

between two and three dimensions. Journal of Chemical Education, 62(12), 1084-1085.

Sedden, G. M., Eniaiyeju, P. A., & Jusoh, I. (1984). The visualization of rotation in diagrams of three-

dimensional structures. American Education Research Journal, 21(1), 25-38.

Seddon, G. M., & Moore, R. G. (1986). The structure of abilities in visualizing the rotation of three-

dimensional structures presented as models and diagrams. British Journal of Educational Psychology,

56, 138-149.

Shepard, R. N. (1978). The mental image. American Psychologist, 33, 125-137.

Siemonkowski, F., & Macknight, F. (1971). Spatial cognition: Success prognosticator in college science

courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 1(1), 56-59.

Talley, L. Y. (1973). The use of three-dimensional visualization as a moderator in the higher cognitive

learning of concepts in college level chemistry. Joural of Research in Science Teaching, 10(3), 263-

269.

Zoller, U. (1990). Students’ misunderstanding and misconception in college freshman chemistry (General and

Organic). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1053-1065.

2005 10 14

2006 02 06

2006 04 11

2006 04 12

408

Effects of the CISC Instructional Strategy on the SpatialAbility of Junior High Students

HSIAO-HUI LIN CHAO-TI HSIUNG SIEH-HWA LIN

Institute of Natural Science Department of Educational Psychology

Education National Taipei and Counseling

University of Education National Taiwan Normal University

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of the Concrete Image Spatial Concepts (CISC)

instructional strategy on the spatial ability of junior high students. The sample consisted of 125 junior high

eighth-grade students in the Taipei area. The participants were assigned to three groups. The experimental

group received a 3-week CISC treatment, whereas the two control groups received a 3-week non-CISC

teaching. The Spatial Ability Test was used in the pre- and post-test. The results showed significant difference

in spatial ability among the three groups, and the spatial ability of the experiment group was better than the

control groups. But no significant difference was found among the low, medium and high achievement

students in the experimental group. From the qualitative data collected in field observations, it was observed

that CISC not only elevated the learners’ operational abilities with mental images but also catalyzed the

interactions between 2D/3D representations. It appears that CISC strategy is functional in lowering students’

cognitive load and the complexity of abstract concepts. CISC has also demonstrated its effectiveness in

elevating students’ spatial ability through ease in mental image construction.

KEY WORDS: Concrete Image Spatial Concepts (CISC) instructional strategy, mental image, spatial

ability, spatial concepts

409

Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 2006, 37(4), 393-409

National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.

CISI