The effects of analogy on students' understanding of direct current circuits and attitudes towards physics lessons

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of analogy on the elimination of students’ misconceptions about direct current circuits, students’ achievement and the attitudes towards physics lessons. The sample of this study consisted of 51 11th grade students from two different classes. While one of the classes was the experimental group where analogy was used in the lessons, the other class was the control group where the traditional methods are employed in lessons and this selection was made randomly. When the obtained results were examined, it was seen that teaching with analogy has a significantly positive effect on the elimination of misconception and achievement although it has almost no effect on the attitudes of towards physics.

Keywords

• analogy, teaching, physics education, students, achievement

References

1. Bartlett D (2004). Analogies between electricity and gravity, Metrologia, 41, 115-124.
2. Black DE, Solomon J (1987). Can pupils use taught analogies for electric current? School Science Review, 69, 249–254.
3. Brown DE (1993). Refocusing core intuitions: A concretizing role for analogy in conceptual change, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1273–1290.
4. Brown DE, Clement J (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction, Instructional Science, 18, 237-261.
5. Chinn CA, Brewer WF (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction, Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.
6. Chiu MH, Lin JW (2002). Using multiple analogies for investigating fourth graders’ conceptual change in electricity, Chinese Journal of Research in Science Education, 10, 109–134.
7. Chiu MH, Lin J W (2005). Promoting Fourth Graders’ Conceptual Change of Their Understanding of Electric Current via Multiple Analogies, Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 42, 429–464.
8. Chiu MH (2000).The implications and reflections of studies in conceptual change, Chinese Journal of Research in Science Education, 8, 1–34.

9. Curtis RV, Reigeluth C M (1984). The use of analogies in written text, Instructional Science, 13, 99-117.
10. Dagher ZR (1994). Does the use of analogies contribute to conceptual change?, Science Education, 78, 601–614.
11. Dilber R, Duzgun B (2008). Effectiveness of Analogy on Students’ Success and Elimination of Misconceptions, Lat. Am. J. Phys. Educ., 2(3), 174-183.
12. Duit R (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science, Science Education, 75, 649–672.
13. Dupin JJ, Joshua S (1989). Analogies and “Modelling analogies” in teaching. Some examples in basic electricity, Science Education, 73, 207-224.
14. Gabel DL, Sherwood R (1980). Effect of using analogies on chemistry achievement according to Piagetian levels, Science Education, 64, 709–716.
15. Gentner D (1983). Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy, Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.
16. Gick M L, Holyoak KJ (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer, Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.
17. Glynn SM (1991). Explaining Science concepts:A teaching-with-analogical model. In S. Glynn, R. Yeany and B. Britton (Eds.), The Psychology of Learning Science (pp. 219-240) (Hillsdale, N. J., Erlbaum).
18. Glynn SM, Britton BK, Semrud-Clikeman M, Muth KD (1989). Analogical reasoning and problem solving in the textbooks. In J.A. Glocer, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of Creativity: Assessment, Theory, and Research (pp. 383–389) (Plenum, New York).
19. Harrison GA, Treagust F D (1994). Science Analogies, The Science Teacher, 61, 40-43.
20. Harrison GA, Treagust FD (1993). Teaching with Analogies: A case Study in Grade-10 Optics, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1291-1307.
21. Holyoak KJ, Thagard P (1995). Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought (The MIT Press. Lawrence Erlbaum, Cambridge, MA).
22. Johnstone AH, Al-Naeme FF (1991). Room for Scientific thought, International Journal of Science Education, 13, 187-192.
23. Keane MT, Ledgeway T, Duff S (1994). Constraints on analogical mapping: A comparison of three models, Cognitive Science, 18, 387–438.
24. Magnusson SJ, Boyle RA, Templin M (1997). Dynamic science assessment: A new approach for investigating conceptual change, Journal of the Learning Science, 6, 91–142.
25. Maichle U (1981). Representation of knowledge in basic electricity and its use for problem solving. In W. Jung, J. Pfundt, & C. von Rhoneck (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Workshop on Problems concerning students’ representation of physics and chemistry knowledge (pp. 174–193), September 14–16 (Pedagogische Hochschule, Ludwigsburg).
26. Maxwell JC (1890). Abstract of Paper ‘On Faraday's Lines of Force’, in The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, ed. W. D. Niven (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Dover, New York, 1952), pp. 367-369.
27. Osborne R, Freyberg P (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children’s science, (Heinemann, Auckland)
28. Osborne R (1981). Children’s ideas about electric current, New Zealand Science Teacher, 29, 12–19.
29. Roland N (2006). A hydrodynamic analogy to energy losses in capacitors, Phys. Educ., 41, 217-218.
30. Sağırlı S (2002). The effect of using analogy on the succeed in science instruction, Master thesis, Marmara University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science, İstanbul.
31. Shepardson DP, Moje DB (1994).The nature of fourth graders’ understandings of electric circuits, Science Education, 78, 489–514
32. Taylor JR, Zafiratos CD (1991). Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers, (Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey).
33. Thiele RB, Treagust DF (1994). An interpretive examination of high school chemistry teachers’ analogical explanations, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 227-242.
34. Thiele RB, Treagust DF (1995). Analogies in chemistry textbook, International Journal of Science Education 17, 783-795.
35. Tiberghien A (1983). Critical review of research concerning the meaning of electric circuits for students aged 8 to 20 years. In Research on Physics Education, Proceedings of the First International Workshop, June 23–July 13).
36. Treagust DF, Harrison AG, Venville G, Dagher Z (1996). Using an Analogical Teaching Approach to Engender Conceptual Change, International Journal of Science Education 18, 213-229.
37. Wong DE (1993). Self-generated analogies as a tool for constructing and evaluating explanations of scientific phenomena, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 367-380).
38. Wong DE (1993).Understanding the generative capacity of analogies as a tool for explanation, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1273-1290.
39. Zeitoun HH (1984). Teaching Scientific Analogies: a proposed model, Research in Science and Technology Education 2, 107-125.
40. Zook KB (1991). Effect of analogical processes on learning and misrepresentation, Educational Psychology Review, 3, 41–72.