Abstract
This paper describes an analogy classification framework used with high school chemistry textbooks. The framework takes into account aspects of past research into analogies in science education to allow for a systematic classification of textbook analogies based upon nine criteria including chemistry content area. Many of the 93 analogies classified described abstract chemistry concepts such as atomic structure and bonding, however, the frequent use of simple analogies, and the scarcity of stated limitations, are likely to create learning problems for students. In some textbooks, authors made use of margin spaces to include more analogies and these marginalised analogies often contained a pictorial component. Recommendations for further research into analogies in science education and possible methodological approaches are suggested.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brown, D.E. & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction.Instructional Science 18: 237–261.
Curtis, R.V. (1988). When is a science analogy like a social studies analogy: A comparison of text analogies across two disciplines.Instructional Science 17: 169–177.
Curtis, R.V. & Reigeluth, CM. (1984). The use of analogies in written text.Instructional Science 13:99–117.
Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science.Science Education 75: 649–672.
Gabel, D.L. & Sherwood, R.D. (1980). Effect of using analogies on chemistry achievement according to Piagetian level.Science Education 64: 709–716.
Gentner, D. & Landers, R. (1985). Analogical reminding: A good match is hard to find. Paper presented at the International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Tucson, AZ.
Glynn, S.M. (1991). Explaining science concepts: A Teaching-With-Analogies model, in S.M. Glynn, R.H. Yeany & B.K. Britton, eds.,The Psychology of Learning Science (pp. 219–239). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glynn, S.M., Britton, B.K., Semrud-Clikeman, M. & Muth, K.D. (1989). In J.A. Glover, R.R. Ronning & C.R. Reynolds, eds.,Handbook of Creativity: Assessment, Theory, and Research (pp. 383–398). New York: Plenum.
Glynn, S.M., Duit, R. & Thiele, R.B. (in press). Teaching science with analogy: A strategy for transferring knowledge, in S.M. Glynn & R. Duit, eds.,Learning Science in the Schools: Research Reforming Practice. Washington, DC: AAAS.
Lewis, P. & Slade, R. (1981).A Guide to H.S.C. Chemistry. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Reigeluth, CM. (1983). Meaningfulness and instruction: Relating what is being learned to what a student knows.Instructional Science 12: 197–218.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching.Educational Researcher 15(2): 4–14.
Stepich, D.A. & Newby, T.J. (1988). Analogical instruction within the information processing paradigm: Effective means to facilitate learning.Instructional Science 17: 129–144.
Tenney, Y. & Gentner, D. (1985). What makes analogies accessible: Experiments on the water-flow analogy for electricity, in R. Duit, W. Jung & C. von Rhöneck, eds.,Aspects of Understanding Electricity (pp. 311–318). Kiel, Germany: IPN/Schmidt & Klaunig.
Thiele, R.B. (1990). A review of literature and text materials to examine the extent and nature of the use of analogies in high school chemistry education. Unpublished manuscript. Perth, Curtin University of Technology.
Thiele, R.B. (1991). Analogies in secondary chemistry education textbooks: The authors' views, in M. Hackling, ed.,Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Western Australian Science Education Association (pp. 133–143). Perth, Australia: Edith Cowan University.
Treagust, D.F., Duit, R., Joslin, P. & Lindauer, I. (1992). Science teachers' use of analogies: Observations from classroom practice.International Journal of Science Education 14: 413–422.
Webb, M.J. (1985). Analogies and their limitations.School Science and Mathematics 85: 645–650.
Reference appendix (textbooks analysed)
Ainley, D., Lazonby, J.N. & Masson, A.J. (1981).Chemistry in Today's World. London: Bell & Hyman Limited.
Boden, A. (1986).Chemtext. Marrickville, Australia: Science Press.
Elvins, C, Jones, D., Lukins, N., Ross, R. & Sanders, R. (1990).Chemistry in Context, Part One. Melbourne: Heinemann Educational Australia.
James, M., Derbogosian, M., Bowen, S. & Auteri, S. (1991).Chemical Connections. Melbourne: The Jacaranda Press.
Bucat, R.J., ed. (1983).Elements of Chemistry, Vol. 1. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.
Bucat, R.J., ed. (1984).Elements of Chemistry, Vol. 2. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.
Garnett, P.J., ed. (1985).Foundations of Chemistry. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Hunter, R.J., Simpson, P.G. & Stranks, D.R. (1981).Chemical Science. Marrickville, Australia: Science Press.
Lewis, P. & Slade, R. (1981).A Guide to H.S.C. Chemistry. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
McTigue, P.T., ed. (1979).Chemistry — Key to the Earth. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thiele, R.B., Treagust, D.F. The nature and extent of analogies in secondary chemistry textbooks. Instr Sci 22, 61–74 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00889523
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00889523