Teaching and Learning with Analogies

Friend or Foe?
  • Allan G. Harrison
  • David F. Treagust
Part of the Science & Technology Education Library book series (CTISE, volume 30)

8. Conclusion

As we have illustrated in this chapter, on balance analogies are a friend to teachers and students alike but as we emphasise, analogies can be double-edged swords. In order that analogies are used as an effective tool in a science teacher’s repertoire, knowledge about their pedagogical function is essential.

In its most elementary form, science teachers’ knowledge about analogies should include:
  • the suitability of the analog to the target for the student audience and the extent of teacher-directed or student-generated mapping needed to understand the target concept;

  • an understanding that an analogy does not provide learners with all facets of the target concept and that multiple analogies can better achieve this goal;

  • an appreciation that not all learners are comfortable with multiple analogies because the epistemological orientation of some is to expect a single explanation for a phenomenon.

Additional understanding of how analogies can be optimally used in class can be derived from the history of scientific discovery and from accounts of the ways experienced science teachers use analogies. We do not wish to claim that analogies used in science classrooms will necessarily improve both science teaching and learning. Still, research has compellingly demonstrated that, when used effectively, analogies are a valuable pedagogical tool in teachers’ repertoires and this enhancement of practice is our aim in writing this chapter.


Science Teaching Science Teacher Alternative Conception Target Concept Series Circuit 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

8.1 References

  1. Atkins, P. (1995). The periodic kingdom. London: Phoenix.Google Scholar
  2. Bronowski, J. (1973). The ascent of man. London: British Broadcasting Corporation.Google Scholar
  3. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Champagne, A. B., Gunstone, R. F., & Klopfer, L. E. (1985). Effecting changes in cognitive structures among physics students. In L. H. T. West, & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 163–188). Orlando, FA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Curtis, R. V., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1984). The use of analogies in written text. Instructional Science, 13, 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dagher, Z. R. (1995a). Does the use of analogies contribute to conceptual change? Science Education, 78, 601–614.Google Scholar
  8. Dagher, Z. R. (1995b). Analysis of analogies used by teachers. Journal of Research in Science Education, 32, 259–270.Google Scholar
  9. Dupin, J. J., & Johsua, S. (1989). Analogies and “modelling analogies” in teaching. Some examples in basic electricity. Science Education, 73, 207–224.Google Scholar
  10. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75, 649–672.Google Scholar
  11. Feynman, R. P. (1994). Six easy pieces. Reading, MA: Helix Books.Google Scholar
  12. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Harrison, A. (2001). How do teachers and textbook writers model scientific ideas for students? Research in Science Education, 31, 401–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Harrison, A.G., & de Jong, O. (2004). Using multiple analogies: Case study of a chemistry teacher’s preparations, presentations and reflections. In the proceedings of European Science Education Research Association. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  18. Hesse, M. B. (1963). Models and analogies in science. London: Seed and Ward.Google Scholar
  19. Hewitt. P. G. (1999). Conceptual physics, 3rd ed. Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  20. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Nersessian, N. (1992). Constructing and instructing: The role of “abstraction techniques” in creating and learning physics. In R. Duschl & R. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 48–68). NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  22. Stocklmayer, S. M., & Treagust, D.F. (1996). Images of electricity: How do novices and experts model electric current? International Journal of Science Education, 18, 163–178.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Treagust, D.F., & Harrison, A.G. (2000). In search of explanatory frameworks: An analysis of Richard Feynman’s lecture, ‘Atoms in motion’. International Journal of Science Education. 22, 1157–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Thiele, R. B., & Treagust, D. F. (1994). An interpretive examination of high school chemistry teachers’ analogical explanations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 227–242.Google Scholar
  27. Wong, E. D. (1993). Self generated analogies as a tool for constructing and evaluating explanations of scientific phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 367–380.Google Scholar
  28. Zook, K. B. (1991). Effect of analogical processes on learning and misrepresentation. Educational Psychology Review, 3(1), 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allan G. Harrison
    • 1
  • David F. Treagust
    • 2
  1. 1.Central Queensland UniversityAustralia
  2. 2.Curtin University of TechnologyAustralia

Personalised recommendations