Strengthening Science Vocabulary through the Use of Imagery Interventions with College Students


This study was an extension of previous work designed to examine the effect of imagery on science vocabulary learning. One hundred students enrolled in a private college in Brooklyn, New York were randomly assigned to four different interventions: Word Only, Picture Presentation, Image Creation—No Picture, and Image Creation—Picture. These interventions were developed taking into account the ability of images to facilitate vocabulary learning, the dual coding theory, and depth of processing. Results demonstrated that students in the imagery creation groups (Image Creation—No Picture and Image Creation—Picture) scored higher on the outcome measures than students placed in the Word Only intervention at immediate recall. However, there were no significant differences shown among the imagery treatments or at delayed recall. The outcome scores from each group also followed the pattern predicted in that the deeper the students processed the “to be learned” vocabulary words, the more words they were able to acquire and retain. This work extends the previous research and highlights the benefits of vocabulary instruction using imagery at all instructional levels.

Share and Cite:

Cohen, M. (2012) Strengthening Science Vocabulary through the Use of Imagery Interventions with College Students. Creative Education, 3, 1251-1258. doi: 10.4236/ce.2012.37184.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Anderson, R. C. (1971). Encoding processes in the storage and retrieval of sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 91, 338-341. doi:10.1037/h0031833
[2] Anderson, J. R., & Bower, G. H. (1973). Human associative memory. Washington DC: Winston.
[3] Anderson, R. C., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1972). Imagery and prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 242-243. doi:10.1037/h0032638
[4] Cohen M. T., & Johnson, H. L. (2012). Improving the acquisition and retention of science material by fifth grade students through the use of imagery interventions. Instructional Science, in press.
[5] McKee, J., & Ogle, D. (2005). Integrating instruction: Literacy and science. New York: Guilford Press.
[6] Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (1996). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.
[7] National Research Council, National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment (1996). National science education standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
[8] Personalized Programming Service, Inc. (2011) Earth science vocabulary. URL (last checked 1 October 2009).
[9] Sadoski, M. (2005). A dual coding view of vocabulary learning. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21, 221-238. doi:10.1080/10573560590949359
[10] Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Kangiser, S. (1988). Imagination in story response: Relationships between imagery, affect, and structural importance. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 320-336. doi:10.2307/748045
[11] Thier, M., & Daviss, B. (2002). The new scienceliteracy: Using language skills to help students learn science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
[12] Wilson, M. (1998). Identifying and teaching essential science vocabulary. School Science Review, 80, 63-66.
[13] Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 689-725. doi:10.1080/09500690305018
[14] Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Prain, V. (2002). Scientists as writers. Science Education, 86, 672-692. doi:10.1002/sce.10042

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.