The Role of Analogies in Learning

Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education book series (CTISE, volume 38)

Abstract

In this chapter, we first present an empirical account that documents teachers’ learning about simple electric circuits through the use of analogies. In reviewing the analysis of data generated, we go on to propose that the research enterprise should shift focus from determining the effectiveness of analogy in cognitive transfer towards recognising the role of analogy in generating engagement in the learning process. Finally, we present an account of how the language used in analogical reasoning offers us both possibility and constraint in shaping the way we conceptualise the world.

Keywords

Coherence Kelly Metaphor 

References

  1. Black, P. J., & Harlen, W. (1993). How can we specify concepts for primary science ? In P. J. Black & A. M. Lucas (Eds.), Children’s informal ideas in science (pp. 208-229). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Browne, D. E. (1994a). Facilitating conceptual change using analogies and explanatory models. International Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 201-214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, T. (1997). Mathematics education and language. Interpreting hermeneutics and post structuralism. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, T. (2001). Mathematics education and language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  5. Browne, D. E. (1994b). Facilitating conceptual change using analogies and explanatory models. International Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 201-214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241-1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041-1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cosgrove, M. (1995). A study in science-in-the-making as students generate an analogy for electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 17(3), 295-310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dreistadt, R. (1968). An analysis of the use of analogies and metaphors in science. Journal of Psychology, 68, 97-116.Google Scholar
  10. Driver, R. (1994). Children’s ideas about physical processes. Electricity. In R. Driver, A. Squires, P. Rushworth, & V. Wood-Robinson (Eds.), Making sense of secondary science (pp. 117-125). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Duit, R. (2008). Bibliography STCSE: Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. Kiel, Germany: IPN-Leibniz Institute for Science Education. Retrieved June 2008, from www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/ stcse/stcse.html.
  12. Easley, J. (1990). Stressing dialogic skill. In E. Duckworth, J. Easley & D. Hawkins (Eds.), Science Education: A minds-on-approach for the elementary years (pp. 61-93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Eger, M. (1992a). Hermeneutics and science education: An introduction. Science and Education, 1, 337-348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eger, M. (1992b). Hermeneutics as an approach to science: Part 1. Science and Education, 2, 1-29.Google Scholar
  15. Eger, M. (1993). Hermeneutics as an approach to science: Part 2. Science and Education, 2(4), 303-328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fensham, P. J. (2001). Science content as problematic - issues for research. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Graber, M. Komorek, A. Kross, et al. (Eds.), Research in science education - past, present and future. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  17. Feynman, R. P. (1992). The character of physical law. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  18. Frederiksen, J. R., White, B. Y., & Guttwill, J. (1999). Dynamic mental models in learning science: the importance of constructing the derivational linkages among models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 806-836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gallagher, S. (1992a). Hermeneutics and education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gallagher, S. (1992b). Language and the imperfect consensus. In T. W. Busch & S. Gallagher (Eds.), Merleau-Pony, hermeneutics and postmodernism (pp. 69-79). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gentner, D., & Gentner, D. R. (1983). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: mental models of electricity. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 99-131). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Gooding, D. (1989). Magnetic curves’ and the magnetic field. In D. Gooding, T. Pinch, & S. Schaffer, S. (Eds.), The uses of experiment. Studies in the natural sciences (pp. 183-224).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gregory, B. (1988). Inventing reality. Physics as language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Heywood, D. (1999). Interpretation and meaning in science education: Hermeneutic perspectives on language in learning and teaching science. Ph.D. thesis, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester.Google Scholar
  25. Heywood, D. (2002). The place of analogies in science education’. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 233-248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heywood, D., & Parker, J. (1997). Confronting the analogy: Primary teachers exploring the usefulness of analogies in the teaching and learning of electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 869-885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heywood, D., & Parker, J. (2001). Describing the cognitive landscape in learning and teaching about forces. International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 1177-1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson, P. (1998). Children's understanding of changes of state involving the gas state, part 2: Evaporation and condensation below boiling point. International Journal of Science Education, 6, 695-709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lee, Y., & Taw, N. (2001). Explorations in promoting conceptual change in electrical concepts via ontological category shift. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 111-149.Google Scholar
  32. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371-388). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (eds). (1985). Learning in science: The implications of ‘children’s science’. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  34. Osborne, J., Black, P., Smith, M., & Meadows, J. (1991). Science processes and concept exploration project. Research report. Electricity. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Parker, J., & Heywood, D. (2000). Exploring the relationship between subject knowledge and pedagogic content knowledge in primary teachers’ learning about force. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 89-111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Reiner, M., & Gilbert, J. (2000). Epistemological resources for thought experimentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 489-506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 31-56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  39. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors of learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.Google Scholar
  40. Shipstone, M. (1984). A study of children’s understanding of electricity in simple D.C. circuits. European Journal of Science Education, 6, 185-195.Google Scholar
  41. Summers, M., Kruger, C., & Mant, J. (1998). Teaching electricity effectively in the primary school: a case study. International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 153-172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tasker, R., & Osborne, R. (1985). Science teaching and science learning. In R. Osborne & P. Freyberg (Eds.), Learning in science, the implications of children's science. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  43. Tiberghein, A. (1985). Some features of children’s ideas and their implications for teaching. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghein (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp. 1-9, 193-201). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Training and Development Agency for schools (TDA) (2007). The revised standards for the recommendation for qualified teacher status (QTS). Retrieved Feb. 2007, from http://www.tda.gov.uk/upload/resources/doc/draft_qts_standards.
  45. Treagust, D. F. (2007). General instructional methods and strategies. In S. K. Abell & L. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 373-392). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  46. Vosnaidou, S. (2001). Conceptual change research and the teaching of science. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Graber, M. Komorek, A. Kross & P. Reiske (Eds.), Research in science education - past, present, and future (pp. 177-188). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  47. Wilbers, J., & Duit, R. (2001). On the micro-structure of analogical reasoning: The case of understanding chaotic systems. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Graber, M. Komorek, A. Kross, et al. (Eds.), Research in science education - past, present, and future (pp. 205-210). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  48. Wolpert, L. W. (1992). The unnatural nature of science. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
  49. Wong, D. E. (1993). Understanding the generative capacity as analogies as a tool for explanation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1259-72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Brown, T. (1997). Mathematics education and language. Interpreting hermeneutics and post structuralism. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  51. Brown, T. (2001). Mathematics education and language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  52. Browne, D. E. (1994). Facilitating conceptual change using analogies and explanatory models. International Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 201-214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241-1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041-1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Cosgrove, M. (1995). A study in science-in-the-making as students generate an analogy for electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 17(3), 295-310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Dreistadt, R. (1968). An analysis of the use of analogies and metaphors in science. Journal of Psychology, 68, 97-116.Google Scholar
  57. Driver, R. (1994). Children’s ideas about physical processes. Electricity. In R. Driver, A. Squires, P. Rushworth, & V. Wood-Robinson (Eds.), Making sense of secondary science (pp. 117-125). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Duit, R. (2008). Bibliography STCSE: Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. Kiel, Germany: IPN-Leibniz Institute for Science Education. Retrieved June 2008, from www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html.
  59. Easley, J. (1990). Stressing dialogic skill. In E. Duckworth, J. Easley & D. Hawkins (Eds.), Science Education: A minds-on-approach for the elementary years (pp. 61-93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  60. Eger, M. (1992a). Hermeneutics and science education: An introduction. Science and Education, 1, 337-348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Eger, M. (1992b). Hermeneutics as an approach to science: Part 1. Science and Education, 2, 1-29.Google Scholar
  62. Fensham, P. J. (2001). Science content as problematic - issues for research. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Graber, M. Komorek, A. Kross, et al. (Eds.), Research in science education - past, present and future (pp. 27-41). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  63. Feynman, R. P. (1992). The character of physical law. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  64. Frederiksen, J. R., White, B. Y., & Guttwill, J. (1999). Dynamic mental models in learning science: the importance of constructing the derivational linkages among models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 806-836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Gallagher, S. (1992a). Hermeneutics and education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  66. Gentner, D., & Gentner, D. R. (1983). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: mental models of electricity. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 99-131). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  67. Gooding, D. (1989). Magnetic curves’ and the magnetic field. In D. Gooding, T. Pinch, & S. Schaffer, S. (Eds.), The uses of experiment. Studies in the natural sciences (pp. 183-224).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Gregory, B. (1988). Inventing reality. Physics as language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  69. Heywood, D. (1999). Interpretation and meaning in science education: Hermeneutic perspectives on language in learning and teaching science. Ph.D. thesis, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester.Google Scholar
  70. Heywood, D. (2002). The place of analogies in science education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 233-248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Heywood, D., & Parker, J. (1997). Confronting the analogy: Primary teachers exploring the usefulness of analogies in the teaching and learning of electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 869-885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Heywood, D., & Parker, J. (2001). Describing the cognitive landscape in learning and teaching about forces. International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 1177-1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Johnson, P. (1998). Children’s understanding of changes of state involving the gas state, part 2: Evaporation and condensation below boiling point. International Journal of Science Education, 6, 695-709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  76. Lee, Y., & Taw, N. (2001). Explorations in promoting conceptual change in electrical concepts via ontological category shift. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 111-149.Google Scholar
  77. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371-388). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Osborne, J., Black, P., Smith, M., & Meadows, J. (1991). Science processes and concept exploration project. Research report. Electricity. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (Eds.). (1985). Learning in science: The implications of ‘children’s science’. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  80. Parker, J., & Heywood, D. (2000). Exploring the relationship between subject knowledge and pedagogic content knowledge in primary teachers’ learning about force. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 89-111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  82. Reiner, M., & Gilbert, J. (2000). Epistemological resources for thought experimentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 489-506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 31-56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  84. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors of learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.Google Scholar
  85. Shipstone, M. (1984). A study of children’s understanding of electricity in simple D.C. circuits. European Journal of Science Education, 6, 185-195.Google Scholar
  86. Summers, M., Kruger, C., & Mant, J. (1998). Teaching electricity effectively in the primary school: a case study. International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 153-172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tasker, R., & Osborne, R. (1985). Science teaching and science learning. In R. Osborne & P. Freyberg (Eds.), Learning in science, the implications of children’s science. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  88. TDA (2007). Training and Development Agency for schools. The revised standards for the recommendation for qualified teacher status (QTS). Retrieved Feb. 2007, from http://www.tda.gov.uk/upload/resources/doc/draft_qts_standards.
  89. Tiberghein, A. (1985). Some features of children’s ideas and their implications for teaching. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghein (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp. 1-9, 193-201). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Treagust, D. F. (2007). General instructional methods and strategies. In S. K. Abell & L. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 373-392). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  91. Vosnaidou, S. (2001). Conceptual change research and the teaching of science. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Graber, M. Komorek, A. Kross & P. Reiske (Eds.), Research in science education - past, present, and future (pp. 177-188). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  92. Wilbers, J., & Duit, R. (2001). On the micro-structure of analogical reasoning: The case of understanding chaotic systems. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Graber, M. Komorek, A. Kross, et al. (Eds.), Research in science education - past, present, and future (pp. 205-210). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  93. Wolpert, L. W. (1992). The unnatural nature of science. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
  94. Wong, D. E. (1993). Understanding the generative capacity as analogies as a tool for explanation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1259-72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EducationManchester Metropolitan UniversityDidsburyUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations