Elaborate analogies in science text: Tools for enhancing preservice teachers’ knowledge and attitudes (original) (raw)

Abstract

Preservice teachers studied texts about three fundamentally important science concepts. They read versions with no analogy, versions with a simple analogy, and versions with an elaborate analogy. An elaborate analogy is one that consists of text and pictorial components in which similarities between the analog and the target concept are made explicit. Verbal and imagery processes combine to promote a mapping of conceptual features. The findings indicated that elaborate analogies improved the science knowledge and attitudes of preservice teachers by relating what is familiar to what is new. The findings are consistent with a constructivist view of learning science and suggest that science texts for preservice teachers should be adapted to take advantage of elaborate analogies in a systematic way. come to the new things in science with what equipment we have, which is how we have learned to think, and above all how we have learned to think about the relatedness of things (pp. 129-130).

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (80)

  1. Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 545-561.
  2. Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. (1996). The role of importance and interest in the processing of text. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 89-121.
  3. Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1998). What responses to domain-specific analogy problems reveal about emerging competence: A new perspective on an old acquaintance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 397-406.
  4. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist, 48, 35-44.
  5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
  6. Brown, D. E. (1992). Using examples and analogies to remediate misconceptions in physics: Factors influencing conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 17-34.
  7. Brown, D. E. (1993). Refocusing core intuitions: A concretizing role for analogy in conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1273-1290.
  8. Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. (1999). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  9. Bulgren, J. A., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., & Lenz, B. K. (2000). The use and effectiveness of analogical instruction in diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 426-441.
  10. Chan, K. K., & Sachs, J. (2001). Beliefs about learning and childrenÕs understanding of science texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 192-210.
  11. Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with studentsÕ preconcep- tions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1241-1257.
  12. Dagher, Z. B. (1994). Does the use of analogies contribute to conceptual change. Science Education, 78, 601-614.
  13. Dagher, Z. R. (1995a). Analysis of analogies used by science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 259-270.
  14. Dagher, Z. R. (1995b). Review of studies on the effectiveness of instructional analogies in science education. Science Education, 79, 295-312.
  15. Dagher, Z. R. (1998). The case for analogies in teaching science for understanding. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. Novak (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding. San Diego: Academic Press.
  16. Dana, T. M., Campbell, L. M., & Lunetta, V. N. (1997). Theoretical bases for reform of science teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 97, 419-432.
  17. Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Smart problem-solving: How metacognition helps. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 47-68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  18. De Groot, E. V. (2002). Learning through interviewing: Students and teachers talk about learning and schooling. Educational Psychologist, 37, 41-52.
  19. Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109-128.
  20. Donnally, C. M., & McDaniel, M. A. (1993). Use of analogy in learning scientific concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 975-987.
  21. Doran, R., Chan, F., & Tamir, P. (1998). Science educatorÕs guide to assessment. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
  22. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75, 649- 672.
  23. Eliasmith, E., & Thagard, P. (2001). Integrating structure and meaning: A distributed model of analogical mapping. Cognitive Science, 25, 245-286.
  24. Flavell, J. H. (1999). Cognitive development. Annual Review of Psychology (Vol. 50). Palo Alto, CA: Annu/al Reviews.
  25. Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199-241). Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
  26. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45-56.
  27. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-38.
  28. Gilbert, S. W. (1989). An evaluation of the use of analogy, simile, and metaphor in science texts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 315-327.
  29. Glynn, S. M. (1991). Explaining science concepts: A teaching-with-analogies model. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 219-240). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  30. Glynn, S. M., & Duit, R. (1995). Learning science meaningfully: Constructing conceptual models. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 3-33). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  31. Glynn, S. M., Duit, R., & Thiele, R. (1995). Teaching science with analogies: A strategy for constructing knowledge. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 247-273). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  32. Glynn, S. M., & Takahashi, T. (1998). Learning from analogy-enhanced science text. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1129-1149.
  33. Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J., & Akey, T. M. (2000). Using SPSS for Windows (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  34. Griffin, M. M., & Robinson, D. H. (2000). Role of mimeticism and spatiality in textual recall. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 125-149.
  35. Hacker, D. J. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 1-23). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  36. Halpern, D. F., Hansen, C., & Riefer, D. (1990). Analogies as an aid to understanding and memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 298-305.
  37. Hamilton, R. J. (1997). Effects of three types of elaboration on learning concepts from text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 299-318.
  38. Hesse, M. B. (1996). Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
  39. Hewitt, P. G. (1993). Conceptual physics (3rd ed.). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
  40. Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of studentsÕ and scientistsÕ reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 663-687.
  41. Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1997). The analogical mind. American Psychologist, 52, 35-44.
  42. Iding, M. K. (1997). How analogies foster learning from science texts. Instructional Science, 25, 233-253.
  43. Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1996). Changes in studentsÕ understandings of evolution resulting from different curricular and instructional strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 879-900.
  44. Kelemen, W. L. (2000). Metamemory cues and monitoring accuracy: Judging what you know and what you will know. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 800-810.
  45. Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  46. Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
  47. Kolodner, J. L. (1997). Educational implications of analogy. American Psychologist, 52, 57-66.
  48. Lawson, A. E. (1993). The importance of analogy: A prelude to the special issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1213-1214.
  49. Lyden, J. A., Chaney, L. H., Danehower, V. C., & Houston, D. A. (2002). Anchoring, attributions, and self-efficacy: An examination of interactions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 99-117.
  50. Martin, V., & Pressley, M. (1991). Elaborative interrogation effects depend on the nature of the question. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 113-119.
  51. Mayer, R. E. (1992). Knowledge and thought: Mental models that support scientific reasoning. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and education theory and practice (pp. 226-243). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  52. Mayer, R. E., Mautone, P., & Prothero, W. (2002). Pictorial aids for learning by doing in a multimedia geology simulation game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 171-185.
  53. McWhaw, K., & Abrami, P. C. (2001). Student goal orientation and interest: Effects on studentsÕ use of self-regulated learning strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 311-329.
  54. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 724-733.
  55. Olejnik, S., Li, J., & Huberty, C. (1997). Multiple testing and statistical power with modified Bonferroni procedures. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 389-406.
  56. Oppenheimer, R. (1956). Analogy in science. American Psychologist, 11, 127-135.
  57. Paris, N. A. (1999). Biology by analogy. The Science Teacher, 66, 38-41.
  58. Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1998). Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 19-33). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  59. Reimann, P., & Schult, T. J. (1996). Turning examples into cases: Acquiring knowledge structures for analogical problem solving. Educational Psychologist, 31, 123-132.
  60. Rumelhart, D. E., & Abrahamson, A. A. (1973). A model for analogical reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 1-28.
  61. Salvucci, D. D., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Integrating analogical mapping and general problem solving: The path-mapping theory. Cognitive Science, 25, 67-110.
  62. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 351- 371.
  63. Schraw, G., Wise, S., & Roos, L. (1998). Metacognition and computer-based testing. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition. Lincoln: Buros-Nebraska Press.
  64. Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  65. Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Self-regulatory processes during computer skill acquisition: Goal and self-evaluative influences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 251-260.
  66. Seifert, T. (1993). Effects of elaborative interrogation with prose passages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 642-651.
  67. Spires, H. A., & Donley, J. (1998). Prior knowledge activation: Inducing engagement with informational texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 249-260.
  68. Starr, C., & Taggert, R. (1998). Biology: The unity and diversity of life (3rd ed.). Boston: Wadsworth.
  69. Thagard, P. (1992). Analogy, explanation, and education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 537-544.
  70. Tobias, S., & Everson, H. T. (1997). Studying the relationship between affective and metacognitive variables. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 10, 59-81.
  71. Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. J. (1996). Metaphors as seeds for conceptual change and the improvement of science teaching. Science Education, 80, 711-730.
  72. Venville, G. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1997). Analogies in biology education: A contentious issue. The American Biology Teacher, 59, 282-287.
  73. Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A. (1989). Similarity and analogical reasoning: A synthesis. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 1-18). Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
  74. Wade, S. E. (1992). How interest affects learning from text. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 255-277). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  75. Wade, S. E., & Moje, E. B. (2000). The role of text in classroom learning. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 609-627). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  76. Willoughby, T., Wood, E., & Khan, M. (1994). Isolating variables that impact on or detract from the effectiveness of elaboration strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 279-289.
  77. White, B. Y. (1995). The TinkerTools Project: Computer microworlds as conceptual tools for facilitating scientific inquiry. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 201-207). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  78. Wolters, C. A. (1998). Self-regulated learning and college studentsÕ regulation of motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 224-235.
  79. Zook, K. B. (1991). Effects of analogical processes on learning and misrepresentation. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 41-72.
  80. Zook, K. B., & Maier, J. M. (1994). Systematic analysis of variables that contribute to the formation of analogical misconceptions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 589-600.