Role Play as Analogical Modelling in Science

  • Peter J. Aubusson
  • Stephen Fogwill
Chapter
Part of the Science & Technology Education Library book series (CTISE, volume 30)

5. Conclusion

The evidence that analogical role play provides a motivating, interesting and enjoyable way to sustain student engagement with ideas may be reason enough to include the strategy in the teaching repertoire. But analogical role play provides much more than affective gains. Role plays can be used to portray ideas and promote discussion. As the role plays evolve in response to this discussion they provide a powerful way to encourage students to think scientifically through analogical reasoning. The dialogue used and developed in the process of producing and analysing the role plays contributes to a successful learning experience. It not only helps to enhance understanding of the concepts being studied at the time but fosters learning during discussions in subsequent lessons.

It is tempting to avoid analogical role play, particularly where the students construct their own model, because the model must by its very nature be incorrect. Yet in classes such as Steve’s, the thinking and learning which occur are difficult to deny.

Keywords

Science Teacher Copper Sulfate Analogical Modelling Role Play Negative Electrode 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

5.1 References

  1. Aubusson, P., Barr, R., Perkovic, L. & Fogwill, S. (1997). What happens when students do simulation-role-play in science. Research in Science Education, 27, 565–579.Google Scholar
  2. Butler, J. (1989). Science learning and drama processes. Science Education, 73(5), 569–579.Google Scholar
  3. Chester, M., & Fox, R. (1966). Role playing methods in the classroom. Chicago: Science Research Association.Google Scholar
  4. Cosgrove, M. (1995). A case study of science-in-the-making as students generate an analogy for electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 295–310.Google Scholar
  5. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning in science. Science Education, 75, 649–672.Google Scholar
  6. Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  7. Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (1998). Learning science through models and modelling. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 53–66). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  8. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning science in Australian schools. DETYA: CanberraGoogle Scholar
  9. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1999). Modelling in science lessons: Are there better ways to learn with models? School Science and Mathematics, 98(8), 420–429.Google Scholar
  10. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heywood, D. (2002). The place of analogies in science education. Cambridge Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hildebrand, G. M. (1989). Creating a gender inclusive science education. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 35, 7–16.Google Scholar
  13. Hiotis, H. (1993). Using creative writing and drama to learn science. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 39 37–40.Google Scholar
  14. Ladrousse, G. P. (1989). Role play. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. MacKinnon, G., & Aucoin, J. (1998). Refrigeration dynamics. Role-play helps students understand lessons beyond the level of the textbook. The Science Teacher, 65(9), 33–37.Google Scholar
  16. Maksic, Z.B. (1990). Theoretical models of chemical bonding Part 1: Atomic hypothesis and the concept of molecular structure. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. McSharry, G., & Jones, S. (2000). Role-play in science teaching and learning. School Science Review, 82, 73–82.Google Scholar
  18. Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (1988). Investigations of exemplary practice in high school science and mathematics. Australian Journal of Education. 32,1, 75–94.Google Scholar
  19. Treagust, D. F. (1993). The evolution of an approach for using analogies in teaching and learning science. Research in Science Education, 23, 293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Treagust, D. F., Harrison, A. G., Venville, G. J., & Dagher, Z. (1996). Using an analogical teaching approach to engender conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 213–229.Google Scholar
  21. Yager, R. E., & Lutz, M. V. (1994). Integrated science: the importance of “how” versus “what”. School Science and Mathematics, 94, 338–346.Google Scholar
  22. Yager, R. E. (1989). A rationale for using personal relevance as a science curriculum focus in schools. School Science and Mathematics, 89, 144–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter J. Aubusson
    • 1
  • Stephen Fogwill
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Technology SydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Wyndham College/University of Technology SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations