Self‐generated analogies as a tool for constructing and evaluating explanations of scientific phenomena

Abstract

How can students be taught to develop explanations for scientific phenomena on their own when their background knowledge is incomplete or poorly organized? Evidence from historical accounts of scientific discovery suggest that self-generated analogies-analogies produced by the learners themselves-are a tool by which individuals can generate, evaluate, and modify their own explanations. The central research questions for this study were: Can students use a series of self-generated analogies to bring about change in their understanding of a given scientific phenomenon, and what is the nature of the change in understanding? Participants were asked to create, apply, and modify their own analogies-as opposed to applying a specific analogy provided by an outsider-as a heuristic for constructing, evaluating, and modifying their own explanations for a given scientific phenomena. Nontrivial changes in explanation facilitated by the use of generative analogies were observed. Changes in understanding ranged from the emergence of new explanations to the raising of important questions about the nature of the phenomenon.With dramatic flair, the ninth-grade science teacher flourishes the bathroom plunger in front of the class. Then, in one quick move, he turns and squishes it against the hard surface of the blackboard. The entire class gasps, then giggles as

Children's analogical reasoning in a third-grade science discussion

“…The use of analogies for instruction, whether initiated by the text, by the teacher, or by the students themselves, has been shown to improve conceptual learning in a variety of science contexts (Dagher, 1995a;Duit, 1991), including psychology (Mayo, 2001), mathematics (Didierjean & Cauzinille-Marmeche, 1998), biology (Baker & Lawson, 2001;Glynn & Takahashi, 1998;Kaufman, Patel, & Magder, 1996;Mason, 1994;Newby, Ertmer, & Stepich, 1995;Pittman, 1999;Swain, 2000), and physics (Chiu & Lin, 2005;Clement, 1988Clement, , 1989Clement, , 1993Clement, , 1998Heywood & Parker, 1997;Mason & Sorzio, 1996;Stavy, 1991;Wong, 1993aWong, , 1993b. In addition, instructional activities involving student-generated analogies may reveal student understanding better than traditional assessment (Pittman, 1999).…”

Collaborative and self-generated analogies in science education

“…The students in both groups were found to generate a large number of analogies, all of which involved microscopic accounts for the phenomena, where the particles in the gas were compared to, among other things, mingling people at a party, bouncing balls and angry bees in a jar. These examples are reminiscent of the ones identified by Wong (1993a), with the exception that there were no macroscopic analogies such as tug-of-war or rubber-band comparisons. The students were found to elaborate analogies that they had come up with themselves to a greater depth than analogies that were recalled from prior teaching.…”

“…David Wong (1993aWong ( , 1993b has contributed substantially to the development of self-generated analogy as an approach in science education practice and research, in putting it on a solid theoretical ground and providing empirical examples of students'…”

“…The approach has been found to be conducive to a focus on relational structure and leads to better learning gains, as compared to teacher-generated analogies or no-analogy approaches, as well as a useful tool for formative assessment. As exemplified by Wong (1993a), the engagement with a particular analogy should not end with having identified a suitable source domain.…”

“…From this perspective, Wong (1993b) uses the students' analogies for air pressure phenomena presented above (Wong, 1993a) as an example where students' prior knowledge is incomplete or poorly organised:…”