Using analogies to improve elementary school students' inferential reasoning about scientific concepts

School Science and Mathematics, Mar 2001 by Yanowitz, Karen L

Instructional Use of Analogies with Primary and Secondary School Students

Some researchers have examined how using instructional text analogies influences children's general understanding of science concepts. However, many of these studies used a combination of text, lecture, pictures, extensive training programs, and/or demonstrations to introduce the analogy (Alexander, Pate, Kulikowich, Farrell, & Wright, 1989; Bean, Searles, Singer, & Cowan, 1990; Flick, 1991; Friedel, Gabel, & Samuel, 1990; Gobert & Clement, 1994, Harrison & Treagust, 1993; Mason, 1994).

These studies do not provide adequate information as to the effect of purely text-based instructional analogies on students' learning, as the combination of methods may have provided additional support for using and understanding the analogy. For instance, teachers could have monitored comprehension and provided additional explanations or elaborations about the analogy. Clearly, classroom teachers should consider students' understanding and adjust their explanations accordingly. However, learning from textbooks is also an important part of the educational process. Teachers often rely on texts for instruction, and students can use texts when the teacher is unavailable (Carr, Mizelle, & Charak, 1998; Sorrells & Britton, 1998; Yore, 1991).

A few researchers have examined how using textbased instructional analogies affected primary and secondary school students' overall learning about science concepts. Glynn (1997) used a text-based analogy to teach ninth-grade students about the cell, including the names of the major parts of the cell and the functions of those parts. Some students received a standard expository text, while others read an analogy enhanced text that compared the cell to a factory. The text-based analogy did, however, indicate the limits of the analogy and included a visual depiction of the analogy. Students who received the analogy recalled more of the information presented about the cell than did those who received the nonanalogical expository text. Glynn and Takahashi (1998) found comparable results with sixth-- and eighth-grade students using this same enhanced analogy. The analogical text significantly aided students' recall of cell parts and functions, both immediately and after a 2-week interval. Using similar procedures, Simon (1984) and Bean, Searles, Singer, and Cowan (1990) also found that secondary school students who read analogical science texts recalled significantly more of the information presented in those texts than did students who received nonanalogical expository texts.

Not all studies using text-based instructional analogies have found that participants who received an analogical text recalled more information compared to students who read a standard expository text. For instance, Bean, Searles, and Cowan (1990) found that junior high school students' understanding of enzyme functioning was not affected by the type of text students received. Bean et al. asked students to summarize the passage and describe a process presented in the text. They found no difference between the students who had received analogies and those who had not. Additionally, Alexander and Kulikowich (1991) found no difference in sixth-grade students' performance on questions examining the acquisition of factual knowledge as a function of the type of text students received. Although some studies have found no differences as a result of text type, overall, the research suggests that using an analogy as an explanatory device can improve (and at least does not impair) primary and secondary students' recall of basic factual knowledge about the science concept.