| Title |
The theoretical cognitive process of visualization for science education
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2193-1801-3-184 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lindelani E Mnguni |
| Abstract |
The use of visual models such as pictures, diagrams and animations in science education is increasing. This is because of the complex nature associated with the concepts in the field. Students, especially entrant students, often report misconceptions and learning difficulties associated with various concepts especially those that exist at a microscopic level, such as DNA, the gene and meiosis as well as those that exist in relatively large time scales such as evolution. However the role of visual literacy in the construction of knowledge in science education has not been investigated much. This article explores the theoretical process of visualization answering the question "how can visual literacy be understood based on the theoretical cognitive process of visualization in order to inform the understanding, teaching and studying of visual literacy in science education?" Based on various theories on cognitive processes during learning for science and general education the author argues that the theoretical process of visualization consists of three stages, namely, Internalization of Visual Models, Conceptualization of Visual Models and Externalization of Visual Models. The application of this theoretical cognitive process of visualization and the stages of visualization in science education are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Lebanon | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 136 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 15% |
| Researcher | 12 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 11 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 27 | 19% |
| Unknown | 36 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 29 | 20% |
| Chemistry | 11 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 11 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 6% |
| Psychology | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 33 | 23% |
| Unknown | 44 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 April 2018.
All research outputs
#6,134,219
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#367
of 1,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,013
of 228,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#14
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,853 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 228,161 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.