The Affective Dimension of Analogy
- Allan G. Harrison
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$29.95 / €24.95 / £19.95*
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
5. Conclusions And Recommendations
The paper’s examples — the wheels analogy, Dana’s story, Neil’s teaching and Ian’s interview show that analogies can interest students provided the stories are contextually, intellectually and socially familiar. Three recommendations seem pertinent: First, teachers need a rich and varied set of analogies that stimulate their own and their students’ creative imaginations. When teachers and students coconstruct analogical explanations using the students’ shared experiences, effective learning often results. Second, teachers need a systematic strategy for presenting analogies so that the analogy’s familiarity and interest is assured; the shared attributes are mapped in a way that enhances relational knowledge; and a means exists to check that the students realise when and where the analogy breaks down. This strategy is available in the FAR guide (see pp. 20–21). Third, it is important that we study which analogies interest students, why students are interested in these analogies, and which concepts are best developed using these analogies.
This chapter also has shown that expert and creative teachers carefully plan their analogies and understand the limits of their favourite analogies. Yet research shows that many analogies are ad hoc or reflex-like reactions to student disinterest and lack of understanding. Learning will not be of the desired type or depth while ad hoc analogies are retained. I recommend that only those tried analogies that can be presented in an interesting way be used to explain abstract and difficult science concepts.
- Australian Science Education Project (1974). Atoms. Manuka, ACT: Author.
- Dagher, Z. R. (1995). Analysis of analogies used by teachers. Journal of Research in Science Education, 32, 259–270.
- Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75, 649–672.
- Gentner, D. (1983). Structure mapping; a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170. CrossRef
- Gentner, D., & Markman, A.B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45–56. CrossRef
- Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38. CrossRef
- Glynn, S. M. (1991). Explaining science concepts: A teaching-with-analogies model. In S. Glynn, R. Yeany and B. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 219–240). Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum.
- Harrison, A. G. (1994). Is there a scientific explanation for refraction of light? — A review of textbook analogies. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 40,2, 30–35.
- Harrison, A. G. (2001). How do teachers and textbook writers model scientific ideas for students? Research in Science Education, 31, 401–436. CrossRef
- Harrison A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1993). Teaching with analogies: A case study in grade 10 optics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1291–1307.
- Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1994a). Science analogies. The Science Teacher, 61(4), 40–43.
- Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1994b). The three states of matter are like students at school. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 40(2), 20–23.
- Harrison, A.G., & Treagust, D.F. (2000) Learning about atoms, molecules and chemical bonds: a case-study of multiple model use in grade-11 chemistry. Science Education, 84, 352–381. CrossRef
- Hewitt, P. G. (1992). Conceptual physics. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley..
- Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000. London: Kings College.
- Oppenheimer, R. (1956). Analogy in science. American Psychologist, 11, 127–135. CrossRef
- Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
- Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63,2, 197–199. CrossRef
- Thagard, P. (1989). Scientific cognition: Hot or cold. In S. Fuller, M. de Mey and T. Shinn (Eds.) The cognitive turn: Sociological and psychological perspectives on science (pp. 71–82), Dordrecht: Kluwer.
- Treagust, D. F., Harrison, A. G., & Venville, G. (1998). Teaching science effectively with analogies: An approach for pre-service and in-service teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(1), 85–101. CrossRef
- Treagust, D. F., Harrison, A. G., Venville, G., & Dagher, Z. (1996). Using an analogical teaching approach to engender conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 18. 213–229.
- Tyson, L.M., Venville, G.J., Harrison, A.G., & Treagust, D.F. (1997). A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Science Education, 81, 387–404. CrossRef
- van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis. Oxford: Blackwell.
- The Affective Dimension of Analogy
- Book Title
- Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education
- pp 51-63
- Print ISBN
- Online ISBN
- Series Title
- Science & Technology Education Library
- Series Volume
- Series ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Copyright Holder
- Additional Links
- eBook Packages
- Editor Affiliations
- 11. University of Technology Sydney
- 12. Central Queensland University
- 13. Queensland University of Technology
- Allan G. Harrison (14)
- Author Affiliations
- 14. Central Queensland University, Australia
To view the rest of this content please follow the download PDF link above.