• Muammer ÇalikEmail author
  • Alipaşa Ayas
  • Richard K. Coll


This paper reports on an investigation on the use of an analogy activity and seeks to provide evidence of whether the activity enables students to change alternative conceptions towards views more in accord with scientific views for aspects of solution chemistry. We were also interested in how robust any change was and whether these changes in conceptual thinking became embedded in the students’ long-term memory. The study has its theoretical basis in an interpretive paradigm, and used multiple methods to probe the issues in depth. Data collection consisted of two concept test items, one-on-one interviews, and student self-assessment. The sample consisted of 44 Grade 9 students selected from two intact classes (22 each), from Trabzon, Turkey. The interviews were conducted with six students selected because of evidence as to their significant conceptual change in solution chemistry. The research findings revealed statistically significant differences in pre-test and post-test scores, and pre-test and delayed post-test scores (p<0.05), but no differences between post-test and delayed test scores (p>0.05). This suggests that the analogy activity is helpful in enhancing students’ conceptual understanding of solution chemistry, and that these changes may be stored in the students’ long-term memory.

Key words

analogy chemistry education conceptual change conceptual understanding types of solutions 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brown, D.E. (1993). Refocusing core intuitions: A concretizing role for analogy in conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1273–1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, D. & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science, 18, 237–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chiu, M.H. & Lin, J.W. (2002). Using multiple analogies for investigating fourth graders’ conceptual change in electricity. Chinese Journal of Research in Science Education, 10, 109–134.Google Scholar
  4. Clement, J. (1983). A conceptual model discussed by Galileo and used intuitively by physics students. In D. Gentner & A.L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 325–340) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Coll, R.K., France, B. & Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models/and analogies in science education: Implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coştu, B. (2006). Determining students’ conceptual change levels: Evaporation, condensation and boiling. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Institute of Science, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey.Google Scholar
  7. Çalık, M. (2003). A cross-age study of level of students’ understanding related to concepts in solution chemistry. Unpublished Master Thesis, Institute of Science, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey.Google Scholar
  8. Çalık, M. (2005). A cross-age study of different perspectives in solution chemistry from junior to senior high school. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 671–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Çalık, M., & Ayas, A. (2005a). An analogy activity for incorporating students’ conceptions of types of solutions. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 6(2), Article 6Google Scholar
  10. Çalık, M. & Ayas, A. (2005b). A comparison of level of understanding of grade 8 students and science student teachers related to selected chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 638–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Çalık, M., Ayas, A., & Coll, R.K. (2006). A constructivist-based model for the teaching of dissolution of gas in a liquid. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 7(1), Article 4.Google Scholar
  12. Çalık, M., Ayas, A. & Coll, R.K. (2007). Enhancing pre-service primary teachers’ conceptual understanding of solution chemistry with conceptual change text. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Çalık, M., Ayas, A., Coll, R.K., Ünal, S. & Coştu, B. (2007). Investigating the effectiveness of a constructivist-based teaching model on student understanding of the dissolution of gases in liquids. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(3), 257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Çalık, M., Ayas, A. & Ebenezer, J.V. (2005). A review of solution chemistry studies: Insights into students’ conceptions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dagher, Z.R. (1995a). Analysis of analogies used by science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(3), 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dagher, Z.R. (1995b). Review of studies on the effectiveness of instructional analogies in science education. Science Education, 79(3), 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glynn, S.M. (1989). The teaching with analogies model: Explaining concepts in expository texts. In K.D. Muth (Ed.), Children’s comprehension of narrative and expository text: Research into practice (pp. 185–204) Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  19. Glynn, S.M. (1991). Explaining science concepts: A teaching-with-analogies model. In S. Glynn, R. Yeany & B. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 219–240) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Glynn, S.M., Britton, B.K., Semrud-Clikeman, M. & Muth, K.D. (1989). Analogical reasoning and problem solving in the textbooks. In J.A. Glocer, R.R. Ronning & C.R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of Creativity: Assessment, Theory, and Research (pp. 383–389) New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  21. Glynn, S.M. & Takahashi, T. (1998). Learning from analogy-enhanced science text. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1129–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Good, R.G., Wandersee, J.H. & St Julien, J. (1993). Cautionary notes on the appeal of the new "ism" (constructivism) in science education. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 71–87) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Guzzetti, B.J., Williams, W.O., Skeels, S.A. & Wu, S.M. (1997). Influence of text structure on learning counterintuitive physics concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(7), 701–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haidar, A.H. (1997). Prospective chemistry teachers’ conceptions of the conservation matter and related concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harrison, A.G. & Treagust, D.F. (2001). Conceptual change using multiple interpretive perspectives: Two case studies in secondary school chemistry. Instructional Science, 29, 45–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harrison, A.G. & Treagust, D.F. (2006). Teaching and learning with analogies. In P. Aubusson, A. Harrison & S.M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 11–24) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harrison, A., & Coll, R.K. (Eds.). (2007, in press). The FAR guide – An interesting way to teach with analogies. Corwin.Google Scholar
  30. Hynd, C., Alvermann, D. & Qian, G. (1997). Preservice elementary school teachers’ conceptual change about projectile motion: Refutation text, demonstration, affective factors, and relevance. Science Education, 81, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Merriam, S.B. (1988). Case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Palmer, D.H. (2003). Investigating the relationship between refutational text and conceptual change. Science Education, 87, 663–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pınarbaşı, T. & Canpolat, N. (2003). Students’ understanding of solution chemistry concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(11), 1328–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmidt, H.J. (1997). Students’ misconceptions-looking for a pattern. Science Education, 81, 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taylor, N. & Coll, R.K. (1997). The use of analogy in the teaching of solubility to pre-service primary teachers. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 43(4), 58–64.Google Scholar
  37. Treagust, D.F., Harrison, A.G. & Venville, G. (1998). Teaching science effectively with analogy: An approach for pre-service and in-service education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(1), 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tsai, C.C. (1999). Overcoming junior high school students’ misconceptions about microscopic views of phase change: A study of an analogy activity. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research design and methods. San Francisco: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Wheatley, G.H. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning. Science Education, 75(1), 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Muammer Çalik
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alipaşa Ayas
    • 2
  • Richard K. Coll
    • 3
  1. 1.KTU, Fatih Faculty of EducationDepartment of Primary Teacher EducationSöğütlü-TrabzonTurkey
  2. 2.Fatih Faculty of EducationDepartment of Secondary Science and Mathematics EducationSöğütlü–TrabzonTurkey
  3. 3.Centre for Science & Technology Education ResearchUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations