The Affective Dimension of Analogy
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.
KeywordsScience Teacher Conceptual Change Concept Learning Affective Dimension Creative Imagination
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Australian Science Education Project (1974). Atoms. Manuka, ACT: Author.Google Scholar
- Dagher, Z. R. (1995). Analysis of analogies used by teachers. Journal of Research in Science Education, 32, 259–270.Google Scholar
- Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75, 649–672.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1994a). Science analogies. The Science Teacher, 61(4), 40–43.Google Scholar
- 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
- Hewitt, P. G. (1992). Conceptual physics. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley..Google Scholar
- Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000. London: Kings College.Google Scholar
- Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar