Students’ imagery modes in conceptual construction of magnetic field Galit Botzer and Miriam Reiner Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Israel 1. Introduction Imagery refers to the ability to generate mental images and to manipulate these images in the mind (Kosslyn 1994). Mental imagery has been playing an essential role in physics’ discoveries. Famous physicists like Einstein, Newton and Galileo utilized imagery thought in their work (Shepard 1988; Miller 1987). An impressive example is Faraday’s analysis of force fields in terms of field lines. Faraday’s representations evolved from object-like representations based on magnets, coil and iron-fillings to imaginary entities such as field lines (Macdonald 1965). Maxwell used Faraday’s models to derive mathematical formulas (Shepard 1988). Miller (1987) claims that modern physics has been developing through a similar evolution of representations: from (A) sensory systems (e.g. Galileo used object-like representations to show that all bodies fall at the same speed) then to (B) non- sensory systems (e.g. Maxwell used pure-imaginary representations to construct his electromagnetic theory), and finally to (C) formal systems (e.g. Heisenberg used symbolic representations and quantitative variables to derive the uncertainty principle). In this study, we draw on examples from the history of physics to analyze students’ representations of magnetic phenomena. Two questions are in the focus of our discussion: 1.What imagery modes do naive students use, to construct representation of magnetic phenomena? 2. How the students’ imagery modes evolve during a laboratory activity? 2. Methods Imagery is implicit in nature, hence we followed the qualitative research paradigm and used the grounded theory method (Strauss & Corbin 1998) to uncover, defined, and manipulate abstract categories of imagery thought. Participants: eight couples of ninth grade students, with basic background in electricity and mechanics. Tasks: The learning activity was based on a series of predict-observe-explain laboratory tasks in magnetism. We used three types of representations: concrete representations (magnets, steel nails) microscopic models, and formal symbols (field lines). Data collection: The analyzed data included drawn diagrams, written responses and videotaped oral responses. Data analysis: The students' responses contained 112 representations, which reflected imagery thought. We classified these representations according to their