The Case for Analogies in Teaching Science for Understanding

Publisher Summary This chapter focuses on instructional analogies that involve comparisons of attributes or relationships between the target domain to be explained and the analog or source domain that is familiar. Constructivist learning strategies endorse analogies as tools for rendering counterintuitive ideas that are more intelligible and plausible. Science educators have developed several approaches to instructional analogies to aid students' learning. Although some approaches or teaching models bear resemblance to others, each carries a different emphasis. The process of continuous refinement provides a self-correcting mechanism that minimizes the possibility of creating unintended misconceptions. Both the multiple analogy and the bridging analogy approaches utilize a series of analogs with each successive analogy improving on the one that precedes it. The main difference between the two approaches is one of the reference points in selecting the intermediate analogs. The advantage of student-developed analogies is that students are actively involved in identifying and developing their knowledge and taking ownership of their ideas.

[1]  Zoubeida R. Dagher,et al.  Review of studies on the effectiveness of instructional analogies in science education , 1995 .

[2]  R. Dreistadt,et al.  The Use of Analogies and Incubation in Obtaining Insights in Creative Problem Solving , 1969 .

[3]  K. Gallas.  The languages of learning : how children talk, write, dance, draw, and sing their understanding of the world , 1994 .

[4]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Science teachers’ use of analogies: observations from classroom practice , 1992 .

[5]  K. Egan,et al.  Primary Understanding: Education in Early Childhood , 1988 .

[6]  John J. Clement,et al.  Learning via model construction and criticism: protocol evidence on sources of creativity in science , 1988 .

[7]  J. Lemke.  Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values , 1990 .

[8]  K. Holyoak,et al.  The analogical mind. , 1997, The American psychologist.

[9]  Bruce K. Britton,et al.  Analogical Reasoning and Problem Solving in Science Textbooks , 1989 .

[10]  D. Gentner,et al.  Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity , 1982 .

[11]  Zoubeida R. Dagher,et al.  Does the use of analogies contribute to conceptual change , 1994 .

[12]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Teaching with analogies: A case study in grade-10 optics , 1993 .

[13]  J. Bruner.  Acts of meaning , 1990 .

[14]  B. Indurkhya.  Metaphor and Cognition: An Interactionist Approach , 1992 .

[15]  E. Wong,et al.  Understanding the generative capacity of analogies as a tool for explanation , 1993 .

[16]  Z. Dagher.  Analysis of analogies used by science teachers , 1995 .

[17]  Steven W. Gilbert,et al.  An evaluation of the use of analogy, simile, and metaphor in science texts , 1989 .

[18]  David F. Treagust,et al.  A historical analysis of electric currents in textbooks: A century of influence on physics education , 1994 .

[19]  R. Duit.  On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. , 1991 .

[20]  Ruth Villency Curtis.  The Analogy as an Instructional and Motivational Design Strategy in Text , 1985 .

[21]  John Clement,et al.  Observed Methods for Generating Analogies in Scientific Problem Solving , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[22]  Robert J. Sternberg,et al.  Allowing for Thinking Styles. , 1994 .

[23]  Rand J. Spiro,et al.  Multiple analogies for complex concepts: antidotes for analogy-induced misconception in advanced knowledge acquisition , 1988 .

[24]  John J. Clement,et al.  Using Bridging Analogies and Anchoring Institutions to Seal with Students' Preconceptions in Physics , 1993 .

[25]  Student teachers’ use of analogies in science instruction , 1996 .

[26]  Mike Watts,et al.  The secret life of the chemical bond: students’ anthropomorphic and animistic references to bonding , 1996 .

[27]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Using an analogical teaching approach to engender conceptual change , 1996 .

[28]  E. Wong,et al.  Self‐generated analogies as a tool for constructing and evaluating explanations of scientific phenomena , 1993 .

[29]  Vimla L. Patel,et al.  The explanatory role of spontaneously generated analogies in reasoning about physiological concepts , 1996 .

[30]  David E. Brown,et al.  Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction , 1989 .

[31]  J. Kolodner.  Educational implications of analogy. A view from case-based reasoning. , 1997, The American psychologist.

[32]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Images of electricity: how do novices and experts model electric current? , 1996 .

[33]  Michael J. Webb.  Analogies and Their Limitations , 1985 .

[34]  R. Dreistadt,et al.  An analysis of the use of analogies and metaphors in science. , 1968, The Journal of psychology.

[35]  D. Gentner.  Structure‐Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy* , 1983 .

[36]  U. Goswami.  Analogical reasoning in children , 1993 .

[37]  Hassan Hussein Zeitoun,et al.  Teaching Scientific Analogies: A Proposed Model. , 1984 .