Abstract
Many scientific theories and discoveries involve reasoning about extreme scales, removed from human experience, such as time in geology and size in nanoscience. Thus, understanding scale is central to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Unfortunately, novices have trouble understanding and comparing sizes of unfamiliar large and small magnitudes. Relational reasoning is a promising tool to bridge the gap between direct experience and phenomena at extreme scales. However, instruction does not always improve understanding, and analogies can fail to bring about conceptual change, and even mislead students. Here, we review how people reason about phenomena across scales, in three sections: (a) we develop a framework for how relational reasoning supports understanding extreme scales; (b) we identify cognitive barriers to aligning human and extreme scales; and (c) we outline a theory-based approach to teaching scale information using relational reasoning, present two successful learning activities, and consider the role of a unified scale instruction across STEM education.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ainsworth, S. E. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131–152.
Alexander, P. A., & the Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory. (2012). Reading into the future: competence for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist, 47, 259–28.
Alexander, P. A., Jablansky, S., Singer, L. M., & Dumas, D. (2016). Relational reasoning: what we know and why it matters. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 36–44. doi:10.1177/2372732215622029.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Barth, H. C., & Paladino, A. M. (2011). The development of numerical estimation: evidence against a representational shift. Developmental Science, 14(1), 125–135. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00962.x.
Booth, J. L., & Siegler, R. S. (2006). Developmental and individual differences in pure numerical estimation. Developmental Psychology, 42, 189–201. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.189.
Booth, J. L., & Siegler, R. (2008). Numerical magnitude representations influence arithmetic learning. Child Development, 79(4), 1016–1031.
Brown, D., & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science, 18, 237–261.
Brown, S., & Salter, S. (2010). Analogies in science and science teaching. Advanced Physiological Education, 34, 167–169. doi:10.1152/advan.00022.2010.
Bueti, D., & Walsh, V. (2009). The parietal cortex and the representation of time, space, number and other magnitudes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 1831–1840.
Callanan, M. A., & Markman, E. M. (1982). Principles of organization in young children’s natural language hierarchies. Child Development, 53, 1093–1101.
Cantlon, J. F., Platt, M. L., & Brannon, E. M. (2009). Beyond the number domain. Trends in Cognitive Science, 13, 83–91.
Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1983). The acquisition of addition and subtraction concepts. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Clary, R. M., & Wandersee, J. H. (2009). Tried and true: How Old? Tested and trouble-free ways to convey geologic time. ScienceScope, 33(4), 62–66.
Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1241–1257.
Cohen Kadosh, R., Lammertyn, J., & Izard, V. (2008). Are numbers special? An overview of chronometric, neuroimaging, developmental and comparative studies of magnitude representation. Progress in Neurobiology, 84, 132–147.
Coulter, G. A., & Grossen, B. (1997). The effectiveness of in-class instructive feedback versus after-class instructive feedback for teachers learning direct instruction teaching behaviors. Effective School Practices, 16, 21–34.
de Havia, M. D., & Spelke, E. S. (2010). Number-space mapping in human infants. Psychological Science, 21, 653–660.
de Jong, T., Ainsworth, S., Dobson, M., van der Hulst, A., Levonen, J., Reimann, P., Sime, J., van Someren, M., Spada, H., & Swaak, J. (1998). Acquiring knowledge in science and math: the use of multiple representations in technology based learning environments. In M. W. Van Someren, P. Reimann, H. Bozhimen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 9–40). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and numerical magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396.
Delgado, C., Stevens, S., Shin, N., Yunker, M., & Krajcik, J. (2007). The development of Students’ conceptions of size. New Orleans, LA: National Association of Research in Science Teaching.
Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 30, 1241–1257.
Dumas, D., Alexander, P. A., & Grossnickle, E. M. (2013). Relational reasoning and its manifestations in the educational context: a systematic review of the literature. Educational Psychology Review, 25, 391–427.
Eames, C. & Eames, R. (1968). Powers of Ten [Motion picture]. USA: IBM.
Ellis, A. K., & Fouts, J. T. (2001). Interdisciplinary curriculum: the research base. Music Educators Journal, 87, 22–27.
Friedman, A., & Brown, N. R. (2000). Reasoning about geography. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 129, 193–219.
Galilei, G. (1638). Two new sciences. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Gentner, D. (1982). Are scientific analogies metaphors? In D. S. Miall (Ed.), Metaphor: Problems and perspectives (pp. 106–132). Brighton, England: Harvester Press Ltd.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.
Gentner, D., & Gentner, D. R. (1983). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 99–129). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (Reprinted in M. J. Brosnan (Ed.), Cognitive functions: Classic readings in representation and reasoning. Eltham, London: Greenwich University Press).
Gentner, D., & Gunn, V. (2001). Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences. Memory and Cognition, 29(4), 565–577.
Gentner, D., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Reasoning and learning by analogy: introduction. American Psychologist, 52, 32–34.
Gentner, D., & Namy, L. (1999). Comparison in the development of categories. Cognitive Development, 14, 487–513.
Gentner & Namy. (2006). Analogical Processes in Language Learning. Association for Psychological Science, 15(6).
Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Hung, B. (2007). Comparison facilitates children's learning of names for parts. Journal of Cognition and Development, 8(3), 285–307.
Glynn, S. (1995). Conceptual bridges: using analogies to explain scientific concepts. Science Teacher, 62, 24–27.
Goldstone, R. L. (1994). The role of similarity in categorization: Providing a groundwork. Cognition, 52, 125–157.
Halford, G. S. (1993) Children’s understanding: the development of mental models. Erlbaum. [DBB, DG, arGSH].
Hawkins, D. (1978), Critical barriers to science learning, Outlook, 29.
Huang, C., & Huang, M. (2012). The scale of the universe 2. Copyright: Cary and Michael Huang. Retrieved from http://htwins.net/scale2/.
Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2003). A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. Psychological Review, 110, 220–264.
Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L., & Prohaska, V. (1988). Hierarchical organization in ordered domains: Estimating the dates of events. Psychological Review, 95, 471–484.
Huttenlocher, J. E., Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (2000). Why do categories affect stimulus judgment? Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 129, 220–241.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
Jones, M. G., & Taylor, A. R. (2009). Developing a sense of scale: looking backward. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 460–475.
Jones, M. G., Tretter, T., Taylor, A., & Oppewal, T. (2008). Experienced and novice teachers’ concepts of spatial scale. International Journal of Science Education, 30(3), 409–429.
Kamrin, M. A., Katz, D. J., & Walter, M. L. (1995). Reporting on risk. A Journalist’s handbook. Ann Arbor: Michigan sea grant college program, 1994 (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Foundation for American Communications and National Sea Grant College Program.
Kaufman, D. R., Patel, V. L., & Magder, S. A. (1996). The explanatory role of spontaneously generated analogies in reasoning about physiological concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 369–386.
Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). A strategic assessment of audience response systems used in higher education. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 235-249.
Kokinov, B., & French, R. M. (2003). Computational models of analogy making. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp. 113–118). London: MacMillan.
Kotovsky, L., & Gentner, D. (1996). Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity. Child Development, 67, 2797–2822.
Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The role of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 105–144.
Lamon, S. (1994). Ratio and proportion: cognitive foundations in unitizing and norming. In G. J. Harel Confrey (Ed.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 89–120). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Landy, D., Silbert, N., & Goldin, A. (2013). Estimating large numbers. Cognitive Science, 37, 775–799.
Landy, D., Charlesworth, A., & Ottmar, E. (2014). Cutting in line: discontinuities in the use of large numbers in adults. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Quebec City, Quebec: Cognitive Science Society.
Laski, E., & Siegler, R. (2007). Is 27 a Big number? correlational and causal connections among numerical categorization, number line estimation, and numerical magnitude comparison. Child Development, 78(6), 1723–1743.
Libarkin, J. C., Anderson, S. W., Dahl, J., Beilfuss, M., & Boone, W. (2005). Qualitative analysis of college Students’ ideas about the earth: interviews and open-ended questionnaires. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 17–26.
Libarkin, J. C., Kurdziel, J. P., & Anderson, S. W. (2007). College student conceptions of geological time and the disconnect between ordering and scale. Journal of Geoscience Education, 55, 413–422.
Lourenco, S. F., & Longo, M. R. (2011). Origins and development of generalized magnitude representation. In S. Dehaene & E. M. Brannon (Eds.), Space, time and number in the brain: Searching for the foundations of mathematical thought (pp. 225–244). London: Elsevier.
Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1993a). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 431–467.
Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1993b). Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 517–535.
Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1996). Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons. Memory and Cognition, 24, 235–249.
Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1997). The effects of alignability on memory. Psychological Science, 8, 363c367.
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 100(2), 254–278.
Miller & Brewer. (2010). Misconceptions of Astronomical Distances. International Journal of Science Education, 32(12).
National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education (Committee on a conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standards. Board on science education, DBASSE). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Opfer, J. E., Siegler, R. S., & Young, C. J. (2011). The powers of noise-fitting: reply to Barth and Paladino. Developmental Science, 14, 1194–1204.
Orgill, M., & Bodner, G. (2004). What research tells us about using analogies to teach chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5, 15–32.
Pashler, H., Bain, P., Bottge, B., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., & Metcalfe, J. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning (NCER 2007-2004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ncer.ed.gov.
Petcovic & Ruhf. (2008). Geoscience conceptual knowledge of preservice elementary teachers: results from the geoscience concept inventory. Journal of Geoscience Education, 56(3), 251–260.
Resnick, I., Atit, K., & Shipley, T. F. (2012). Teaching geologic events to understand geologic time. In K. A. Kastens & C. A. Manduca (Eds.), Earth and mind II: a synthesis of research on thinking and learning in the geosciences: geological society of america special paper 486. Boulder, Colorado: The Geological Society of America, Inc.
Resnick, I., Davatzes. A., & Shipley, T. F. (2013). Using analogy to improve understanding of large magnitudes. Poster presented at the Improving Middle School Science Instruction Using Cognitive Science Conference, Washington D.C.
Resnick, I., Jordan, N. C., Hansen, N., Rajan, V., Rodrigues, J., Siegler, R. S., & Fuchs, L. (2016). Developmental growth trajectories in understanding of fraction magnitude from fourth through sixth grade. Developmental Psychology.
Resnick, I., Newcombe, N. S., & Shipley, T. F. (2016). Dealing with big numbers: Representation and understanding of magnitudes outside of human experience. Cognitive Science.
Riebeek, H. (2010, June). Global Warming. Retrieved from: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/.
Schmidt, W. H., Houang, R., & Cogan, L. (2002). A coherent curriculum: The case of mathematics. American Educator, 26.
Schneider, M., & Siegler, R. S. (2010). Representations of the magnitudes of fractions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 36(5), 1227–1238. doi:10.1037/a0018170.
Semken, S., Dodick, J., Ben-David, O., Pineda, M., Bueno Watts, N., & Karlstrom, K. (2009). Timeline and time scale cognition experiments for a geological interpretative exhibit at Grand Canyon. Proceedings of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, California.
Sharpe, T. L., Lounsbery, M., & Bahls, V. (1997). Description and effects of sequential behavior practice in teacher education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68, 222–232.
Shipley, T. F., & Zacks, J. (2008). Understanding events: from perception to action. New York: NY, Oxford University Press.
Siegler, R. S., & Booth, J. L. (2004). Development of numerical estimation in young children. Child Development, 75, 428–444. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00684.x.
Siegler, R. S., & Lortie-Forgues, H. (2014). An integrative theory of numerical development. Child Development Perspectives, 8, 144–150.
Siegler, R. S., & Opfer, J. E. (2003). The development of numerical estimation: Evidence for multiple representations of numerical quantity. Psychological Science, 14.
Siegler, R. S., Thompson, C. A., & Schneider, M. (2011). An integrated theory of whole number and fractions development. Cognitive Psychology, 62(4), 273–296. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.03.001.
Simons, P. R. J. (1984). Instructing with analogies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 513–527.
Stevens, A., & Coupe, P. (1978). Distortions in judged spatial relations. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 422–437.
Thagard, P. (1992). Analogy, explanation, and education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 537–544.
Thompson, C., & Opfer, J. (2010). How 15 hundred is like 15 cherries: Effect of progressive alignment on representational changes in numerical cognition. Child Development.
Thompson, C. A., & Siegler, R. S. (2010). Linear numerical magnitude representations aid children’s memory for numbers. Psychological Science, 21, 1274–1281.
Trend, R. D. (2001). Deep time framework: a preliminary study of UK primary teachers’ conceptions of geological time and perceptions of geoscience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 191–221.
Tretter, T. R., Jones, M. G., Andre, T., Negishi, A., & Minogue, J. (2006). Conceptual boundaries and distances: Students’ and experts’ concepts of the scale of scientific phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 282–319.
Vosniadou, S., & Mason, L. (2012). Conceptual change induced by instruction: a complex interplay of multiple factors. In K. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 221–246). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Walsh, V. (2003). A theory of magnitude: common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 7(11).
Wheeling Jesuit University. (2004). Geologic time activity. Copy right 1997-2004 by Wheeling Jesuit University/NASA-supported Classroom of the Future.
Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2001). Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 3–21.
Zook, K. B. (1991). Effects of analogical processes on learning and misrepresentation. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 41–72.
Zook, K. B., & DiVesta, F. J. (1991). Instructional analogies and conceptual misrepresentations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 246–252.
Zook, K. B., & Maier, J. M. (1994). Systematic analysis of variables that contribute to the formation of analogical misconceptions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 589–699.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation Grants SBE-0541957 and SBE-1041707 which support the NSF funded Spatial Intelligence Learning Center and the Institute of Education Sciences Grant R305B130012 as part of the Postdoctoral Research Training Program in the Education Sciences.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Resnick, I., Davatzes, A., Newcombe, N.S. et al. Using Relational Reasoning to Learn About Scientific Phenomena at Unfamiliar Scales. Educ Psychol Rev 29, 11–25 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9371-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9371-5