JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
An Analysis of Features in Self Generated Analogies during Phaseal Teaching Learning Process about Mixture Using Analogy for Lower Elementary School Students
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
An Analysis of Features in Self Generated Analogies during Phaseal Teaching Learning Process about Mixture Using Analogy for Lower Elementary School Students
Jung, Jin Kyu; Kim, Youngmin;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Analogical reasoning is a central component of human cognition and contributes to scientific discovery and to develop science education. In this study, we investigated the process features of lower elementary school students' analogical reasoning to explain mixture concept. The subjects are 24 lower elementary students. And the research design includes three phases instruction to investigate the features of students' self generated analogy. Phase 1 is the introduction of analogy in which student learn to use analogy. Phase 2 is a POE class about mixture conception. Piaget and Inhelder studied the conception of mixing among children in relation to cognitive development. In phase 2, we taught the student with Piaget and Inhelder's the experiment and observed the features of learning process about mixture conception. Phase 3 is students' generation of analogy (self generated analogy) for the experienced phenomena in phase 2. We analyzed the students' responses through the three phases in the view of Gentner's Structure Mapping Theory. The results showed that many lower elementary school students even before formal operation stage understood the mixture conception and made well their self generated analogy to explain the mixture conception in spite of the difficulty of making self generated analogy.
 Keywords
science education;analogy;analogical reasoning;self generated analogy;mixture;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Blanchette, I. & Dunbar, K. (2000). How analogies are generated: The roles of structural and superficial similarity. Memory & Cognition, 28(1), 108-124. crossref(new window)

2.
Brown, A. L., Kane, M. J. & Long, C. (1989). Analogical transfer in young children: Analogies as tools for communication and exposition. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3(4), 275-293. crossref(new window)

3.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

4.
Choi, S., Lee, Y. & Kang, H. (2006). The effects of the visual-analogical learning on student creativity and science achievement in elementary school science. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 26(2), 167-176.

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), 1241-1257. crossref(new window)

6.
Dagher, Z. R. (1995). Review of studies on the effectiveness of instructional analogies in science education. Science Education, 79(3), 295-312. crossref(new window)

7.
Driver, R. & Bell, B. (1986). Students' thinking and the learning of science: A constructivist view. School Science Review, 67(240), 443-56.

8.
Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649-672. crossref(new window)

9.
Duit, R., Roth, W. M., Komorek, M. & Wilbers, J. (2001). Fostering conceptual change by analogies-between Scylla and Charybdis. Learning and Instruction, 11(4), 283-303. crossref(new window)

10.
Gabel, D. L. & Sherwood, R. D. (1980). Effect of using analogies on chemistry achievement according to Piagetian level. Science Education, 64(5), 709-716. crossref(new window)

11.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155-170. crossref(new window)

12.
Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

13.
Gilbert, S. W. (1989). An evaluation of the use of analogy, simile, and metaphor in science texts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(4), 315-327. crossref(new window)

14.
Glynn SM (1991). Explaining science concepts: A teaching-with-analogies model. In S Glynn, R Yeany and Briton (Eds.) The psychology of learning science. H Usdale. NK: Erlbaum.

15.
Goswami, U. (1992). Analogical reasoning in children. Hove, England: Erlbaum.

16.
Haglund, J., Jeppsson, F. & Andersson, J. (2012). Young children's analogical reasoning in science domains. Science Education, 96(4), 725-756. crossref(new window)

17.
Harrison, A. G. & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011-1026. crossref(new window)

18.
Harrison, A. G. & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Teaching and learning with analogies. In Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 11-24). Springer Netherlands.

19.
Kang, H. & Cheon, J. (2010). Characteristics, mapping understanding, mapping errors, and perceptions of studentgenerated analogies by elementary school students' approaches to learning. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 30(5), 668-680.

20.
Kearney, M., Treagust, D. F., Yeo, S. & Zadnik, M. G. (2001). Student and teacher perceptions of the use of multimedia supported predictobserve-explain tasks to probe understanding. Research in Science Education, 31, 589-615. crossref(new window)

21.
Kim K., Hwang, S. & Noh, T. (2010). The relationships among students' mapping understanding, mapping errors and cognitive/affective variables in learning with analogy. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 54(1), 150-157. crossref(new window)

22.
Kim, Y. (2010). Abductive reasoning and creativity in physics and physics education. The Korean Physical Society, 60(7), 689-701.

23.
Kim, H. & Jo, Y. (2001). Model for the photosynthesis concept learning in elementary science. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 21(2), 444-458.

24.
Kim, W., Kim, Y., Seo, H. & Park, J. (2013). Thomas Young's problem solving through analogical reasoning in the process of light inference theory formation and its implications for scientific creativity education. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 23(5), 817-833.

25.
Ko, S., Choi, Y. & Yeo, S. (2007). A case study on the pattern of teachers' analogies in elementary science classes. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 26(3), 276-285.

26.
Kwon, J. (2010). Analysis of elementary school students' analogy and analog in school science. Master thesis. Gyeongin National University.

27.
Lee, E. & Park, J. (2008). The investigation of the concept of matter state of the elementary students and teachers. Research Institute of Curriculum and Instruction, 12(1), 183-200.

28.
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2011). National science curriculum. MEST.

29.
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2015). Science teacher's guides for elementary school (4rd grade). Seoul: Mirae-N.

30.
National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.). Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

31.
National Research Council (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

32.
Noh, T., Byun, S., Jeon, K. & Kown, H. (2003). The influences of role-playing analogy in chemistry concept learning. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 23(3), 246-253.

33.
Noh, T., Yang, C. & Kang, S. (2011). Perceptions of elementary school teachers on the use of analogy generation in scientifically-gifted education. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 30(1), 22-37.

34.
Paik, S., Park, J., Park, J., Im, M., Ko, Y., Cho, B. & Kim, H. (2002). Analysis of K-12 science textbooks related to 'states of water', 'state change of water', and 'conditions of state change'. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 22(2), 215-229.

35.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1975). The origin of the idea of chance in children. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

36.
Pittman, K. M. (1999). Student-generated analogies: another way of knowing?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 1-22. crossref(new window)

37.
Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D. & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654. crossref(new window)

38.
Thagard, P. (1992). Analogy, explanation, and education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 537-544. crossref(new window)

39.
Thiele, R. B., Venville, G. J. & Treagust, D. F. (1995). A comparative analysis of analogies in secondary biology and chemistry textbooks used in Australian schools. Research in Science Education, 25(2), 221-230. crossref(new window)

40.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

41.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a socio-cultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

42.
Wittrock, M. C. & Alesandrini, K. (1990). Generation of summaries and analogies and analytic and holistic abilities. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 489-502. crossref(new window)

43.
Wong, E. D. (1993a). Self-generated analogies as a tool for constructing and evaluating explanations of scientific phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(4), 367-380. crossref(new window)

44.
Wong, E. D. (1993b). Understanding the generative capacity of analogies as a tool for explanation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1259-1272. crossref(new window)

45.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. crossref(new window)

46.
Yang, C., Kim, K. & Noh, T. (2010). Influence of method using analogy on students' concept. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 30(8), 1044-1059.

47.
Yeo, S., Lee, J. & Shin, M. (2009). The effects of verbal analogy activities as scaffolding on the science achievement and science attitude of elementary students. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 28(4), 507-518.

48.
Yoon, J. & Kang, H. (2011). The effects of analogygenerating in small group on saturated solution in elementary science-gifted education. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 55(3), 509-518. crossref(new window)

49.
Zeitoun, H. H. (1984). Teaching scientific analogies: A proposed model. Research in Science & Technological Education, 2(2), 107-125. crossref(new window)