Object Spatial Visualization and Verbal Cognitive Styles, and Their Relation to Cognitive Abilities and Mathematical Performance.

The visualizer verbalizer cognitive style dimension has been of considerable interest to researchers for many years. In these studies, students were identified as either visualizers or verbalizers, and significant differences favoring verbalizers were found in cognitive abilities and mathematical performance. Kozhevnikov, Hegarty, and Mayer (2002) and Kozhevnikov, Motes, and Hegarty (2007) have provided evidence for two distinct groups of visualizers object and spatial visualizers who process visual spatial information and graphic tasks in different ways and further explained why the visualizer verbalizer classification led to inconsistent findings in previous research studies. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine differences in cognitive abilities and mathematical performance of high school students related to differences in their object spatial visualization and verbal cognitive styles.Visualizer verbalizer Cognitive StyleThe lack of a relationship between self reports of visual verbal cognitive style and both cognitive abilities and mathematical performance has been reported in the literature (e.g. Hegarty Kozhevnikov, 1999; Lean Clements, 1981) Researchers (e.g. Bishop, 1983, 1989; Dean Morris, 2003; Guay, McDaniel, Angelo, 1978; Krutetskii, 1976; Lohman, 1979; McAvinue Robertson, 2006 2007; Presmeg, 2006) have presented hypotheses to account for the lack of a relationship between selfreports of the visual cognitive style and spatial ability: (a) Self report instruments are not reliable and have poor predictive validity; (b) Spatial ability tests are susceptible to alternative solutions and often measure different abilities for different people; (c) Individuals who have the ability to generate and manipulate visual images might prefer not to do so when the use of visual processes is not required; (d) Items of spatial ability tests and self report instruments measure different properties and processes of visual imagery. However, Kozhevnikov, Hegarty, and Mayer (2002) and Kozhevnikov, Kosslyn, and Shepard (2005) pointed to the visualizer verbalizer classification as a factor that has led to inconsistent results in previous studies. According to Kozhevnikov and her associates, visualizers are not a homogenous group with respect to their spatial ability but rather consist of two distinct groups object and spatial visualizers who differ in processing visual spatial information and graphic tasks, and thus, significant relationships can be found between visual cognitive style, spatial ability, and mathematical performance if visualizers are divided into these two distinct groups.Some individuals use object imagery to construct detailed images of objects, which hinder effective spatial transformations and successful performance on spatial and mathematical tasks. Others use spatial imagery to create images representing spatial relations among objects, which facilitates efficient spatial transformations and successful performance on spatial and mathematical tasks. Object imagery characterizes color, vividness, shapes, or details of objects, whereas spatial imagery depicts spatial locations or relations between objects. When presented with the graph of a function and asked to draw the derivative graph, object and spatial visualizers used distinct strategies to interpret the graphs of functions. For instance, object visualizers constructed detailed images of slopes of tangent lines, but failed to transform them into derivative graphs, but spatial visualizers were able to visualize the changing slope of tangent lines as well as transform them into derivative graphs (Haciomeroglu, 2015; Haciomeroglu, Aspinwall, Presmeg, 2010).Recent research studies (e.g. Thomas McKay, 2010; Pitta Pantazi Christou, 2010) have also provided support for the distinction between object and spatial imagery cognitive styles. In their studies with prospective teachers, Delice and Sevimli (2010) and Sevimli and Delice (2011a; 2011b; 2011c; 2012) developed case studies to examine students' preferences for representations as they attempted to evaluate definite integrals presented in different representations.