Matthew Horwood/Stringer via Getty ImagesPicture a bright red apple.Most people can do this easily. They imagine the apple’s shape, colour and shine. But for others, the image is vague and blurry or they “see” nothing at all. This is known as aphantasia – a “blind mind’s eye”.What we are dealing with here are individual differences in mental imagery. Research suggests mental imagery exists on a continuum, and this can impact how we learn.Every day in class, students are encouraged to “visualise”, “imagine”, or “picture” concepts. For example, in geography, students need to imagine landscapes or weather systems. In science, they are asked to mentally represent atoms, electric currents or molecular processes.But what happens when a student cannot easily do this?Our study examines whether differences in mental imagery affect students’ learning – and how teachers and parents can reduce any disadvantage this may cause.Why mental imagery mattersWhen students can create a clear mental picture, that image may help them understand, organise and remember new information. This is all helpful for their learning. But research suggests students with weak mental imagery may need to work harder and may not experience these benefits to the same extent. This can sometimes show up as students taking longer to understand new ideas or needing more support to remember what they have learned. Instead of relying on mental images, they may have to process information in other ways – through words, logic, memorisation or repeated rehearsal. This can increase what psychologists call cognitive load, or the amount of mental effort required to learn something new.How can you tell if your child struggles here?Children with weak mental imagery may be less likely to report “seeing pictures in their mind” when reading stories, recalling past events or imagining future situations. They may rely more on verbal descriptions, facts or step-by-step reasoning than on visualisation strategies.This is not uncommon. In our study, we estimated about 10% of students had “no” or “dim” mental imagery. About 30% reported their mental imagery was only “somewhat” vivid. What might help?Our research looked at a teaching approach called “load reduction instruction”. This emphasises making steps in the learning process as clear as possible. It also aims to reduce difficulty early in the learning process, gives students enough opportunities to practice and provides constructive feedback as they learn.We investigated whether teachers’ use of this approach helps students with weak mental imagery in science. Our study focussed on science because a lot of the learning depends on students visualising both concrete and abstract things, such as the three-dimensional orientation of a magnet as well as the imaginary field lines surrounding it.Our researchWe studied 1,451 high school students from years 7 to 10 across seven private schools in Sydney. Five were co-educational, one was single-sex boys’, and one was a single-sex girls’ school.We assessed students’ mental imagery, experience of load reduction instruction and achievement:we asked how well students could imagine familiar scenes or peoplewe asked students to rate the extent to which their science teacher used load reduction instructionfor achievement, students completed a science test.We also considered factors such as prior achievement, age, gender and socio-economic background. This allowed us to examine whether mental imagery and teaching practices had unique effects on achievement beyond these other influences.What we foundStudents with weaker mental imagery tended to achieve lower results in the science test.Importantly, however, these students’ results improved by about 20% if their teachers used the load reduction instruction approach. Notably, test results for students with stronger mental imagery also improved (by about 10%) if they had load reduction instruction. This suggests the teaching approach can be helpful for more than one type of student. These findings also offer a first insight into the role of classroom teaching in assisting students with weak mental imagery. The task now is to extend our survey research to experimental research that objectively assesses students’ mental imagery and adjusts teaching approaches to test their effects for students with formally-identified weak mental imagery.What this means for teachers and parentsMany schoolwork activities unintentionally assume students think in the same way. But students differ in how they process information. Good teaching and learning support – whether it is by a teacher or a parent – recognises these differences. You can help by doing the following:Break down invisible processesFor example, rather than expecting students to picture electric currents or atomic movement in their minds, break them into smaller, tangible steps. This could involve a teacher using a simple diagram or circuit kit and show each step of the process.Some AI tools can also help suggest ways to break topics down. Use visual supports and physical modelsUse diagrams, simulations and physical models to externalise ideas. You could also use household objects to represent scientific ideas.Teachers can use physical objects such as marbles or models to help students understand how particles move, before translating these ideas into equations, text or other scientific representations. Use clear, practical languageFor some students, avoid saying things like “imagine this” and try to use more concrete language accompanied by clear diagrams. For example, instead of just saying “particles gain energy and spread out”, also provide a sequence of images showing particles before heating, during heating and at equilibrium. Beyond schoolAlthough our study focused on students in school, the implications are broader. Mental imagery is used in many walks of life, including navigating unfamiliar places, packing a suitcase, practising sport or music skills, assembling furniture, preparing a meal and planning for future events.Understanding that people vary in this ability may help teachers and parents provide learning experiences that work for a wider range of students, both at school and at home.Andrew J. Martin receives funding from Commonwealth and state departments of education. Emma Burns receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Spencer Foundation, and is on the board of directors at the Australian Education Research Organisation. Joel Pearson receives funding from the Australian Research Council Paul Ginns receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the NSW Department of Education, and the Chartwell Trust. Roger Kennett received funding from the Australian Research Council.