Advertisement

The Affective Dimension of Analogy

Student interest is more than just interesting!
  • Allan G. Harrison
Part of the Science & Technology Education Library book series (CTISE, volume 30)

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.

Keywords

Science Teacher Conceptual Change Concept Learning Affective Dimension Creative Imagination 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

5.1 References

  1. Australian Science Education Project (1974). Atoms. Manuka, ACT: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Dagher, Z. R. (1995). Analysis of analogies used by teachers. Journal of Research in Science Education, 32, 259–270.Google Scholar
  3. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75, 649–672.Google Scholar
  4. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure mapping; a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gentner, D., & Markman, A.B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Harrison, A. G. (2001). How do teachers and textbook writers model scientific ideas for students? Research in Science Education, 31, 401–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1994a). Science analogies. The Science Teacher, 61(4), 40–43.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hewitt, P. G. (1992). Conceptual physics. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley..Google Scholar
  15. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000. London: Kings College.Google Scholar
  16. Oppenheimer, R. (1956). Analogy in science. American Psychologist, 11, 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allan G. Harrison
    • 1
  1. 1.Central Queensland UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations