DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Analysis of Features in Self Generated Analogies during Phaseal Teaching Learning Process about Mixture Using Analogy for Lower Elementary School Students

초등학교 저학년 학생들의 단계적 비유추론 학습과정을 통한 혼합물 학습 과정에서 제시된 생성적 비유의 특징 분석

  • Received : 2015.09.23
  • Accepted : 2015.11.17
  • Published : 2015.11.30

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

References

  1. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  2. Blanchette, I. & Dunbar, K. (2000). How analogies are generated: The roles of structural and superficial similarity. Memory & Cognition, 28(1), 108-124. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211580
  3. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350030402
  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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660301007
  6. Dagher, Z. R. (1995). Review of studies on the effectiveness of instructional analogies in science education. Science Education, 79(3), 295-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730790305
  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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750606
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00034-7
  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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730640516
  11. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155-170. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3
  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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660260405
  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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21009
  17. Harrison, A. G. & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011-1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416884
  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. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013106209449
  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. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2010.54.01.150
  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. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2013.23.5.817
  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. https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2008.12.1.183
  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. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199901)36:1<1::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-2
  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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311
  38. Thagard, P. (1992). Analogy, explanation, and education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 537-544. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290603
  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. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356453
  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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312027003489
  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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300405
  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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660301008
  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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
  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. https://doi.org/10.5012/jkcs.2011.55.3.509
  49. Zeitoun, H. H. (1984). Teaching scientific analogies: A proposed model. Research in Science & Technological Education, 2(2), 107-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514840020203