The Analogical Model-based Physics System: A workbench to investigate issues in how to support learning by analogy in physics

  • Paul Brna
  • David Duncan
Applications in Engineering and Science
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1108)


Learning by analogy has been advocated by a number of researchers in science education [5, 3, 8]. Other researchers have argued against any reliance on analogy at all. Hence there is still some debate about how to utilise analogies in science education. Our concerns here are twofold: how to provide computer-based support for students, and understanding the ways in which students can efficiently exploit analogical forms of reasoning. These two concerns form the motivation for the construction of the Analogical Model-based Physics System (AMPS).

There are several problems worth further exploration that contribute to the justification for AMPS: much teaching by analogy takes place in a manner which does not provide students with effective support for the construction of their own understanding of the domains utilised; students are frequently found to have a poor grasp of the ‘base’ domain being exploited by the teacher; there is a commonly held belief that students require to formulate a ‘complete’ analogy between the putative ‘base’ and ‘target’ domains before they can engage in analogical reasoning; finally, it is an open question as to how to support students in their utilisation of analogical reasoning.

AMPS is a workbench built to explore issues in learning about circuits — both electric and water ones — through analogy. Its design has been informed by research on conceptual change, teaching about electricity and water, the promotion of reflective thought, and — to a lesser extent — computer supported cooperative learning (CSCL). It is being further developed into an Intelligent Learning Environment (ILE) for exploratory learning.


Electrical Circuit Conceptual Change Analogical Reasoning External Representation Thin Wire 
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.


  1. 1.
    Black, D. (1987). Can pupils use taught analogies for electric current? School Science Review, 69(247):249–254.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brna, P. (1996). Can't see the words for the tree: Interpretation and graphical representations. In Proceedings of the Colloquium on Thinking with Diagrams. Digest No: 96/010, IEE, London.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown, D. E. and Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science, 18(237–261).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clement, J. (1988). Observed methods for generating analogies in scientific problem solving. Cognitive Science, 12(4):563–586.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students' preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10):1241–57.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Closset, J-L. (1993). Reasoning about electricity and water circuits: Teaching consequences in electricity. In Caillot, M., (ed.), Learning Electricity and Electronics with Advanced Educational Technology, volume 115 of NATO ASI Series F. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohen, R., Eylon, B. and Ganiel, U. (1983). Potential difference and current in simple electrical circuits: A study of students' concepts. American Journal of Physics, 51(5):407–412.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dupin, J.J. and Joshua, S. (1989). Analogies and ”Modeling Analogies” in teaching: Some examples in basic electricity. Science Education, 73(2):207–224.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gentner, D. and Gentner, D.R. (1983). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In Gentner, D. and Stevens, A., (eds.), Mental Models. Lawrence Erlbaum Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Härtel, H. (1987). A qualitative approach to electricity. Report IRL87-0001, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hesse, M.B. (1966). Models and Analogies in Science. University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johsua, S. and Dupin, J-J. (1993). Using “Modelling Analogies” to teach basic electricity: A critical analysis. In Caillot, M., (ed.), Learning Electricity and Electronics with Advanced Educational Technology, volume 115 of NATO ASI Series F. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Licht, P. (1991). Teaching electrical energy, voltage and current: An alternative approach. Physics Education, 26(5):272–77.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ross, B.H. and Kennedy, P.T. (1990). Generalizing from the use of earlier examples in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Instruction, 16:42–55.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ross, B.H. (1987). This is like that: the use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Instruction, 13:629–639.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sherwood, B.A. and Chabay, R.W. (1993). Electrical interactions and the atomic structure of matter: Adding qualitative reasoning to a calculus-based electricity and magnetism course. In Caillot, M., (ed.), Learning Electricity and Electronics with Advanced Educational Technology, volume 115 of NATO ASI Series F. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    White, B.Y. (1989). The role of intermediate abstractions in understanding science and mathematics. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pages 972–979.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Brna
    • 1
  • David Duncan
    • 2
  1. 1.Computing DepartmentLancaster UniversityEngland
  2. 2.Computer Studies DepartmentNapier UniversityScotland

Personalised recommendations