JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING
VOL. 35, NO. 10, PP. 1129–1149 (1998)
Learning from Analogy-Enhanced Science Text
Shawn M. Glynn, Tomone Takahashi
College of Education, Departments of Educational Psychology and Science Education,
325 Aderhold Hall, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602
Received 24 June 1996; first revision 5 September 1997; second revision 16 February 1998;
accepted 17 March 1998
Abstract: The present study examined the role that an elaborate analogy can play when middle school
students learn a major concept from a science text. The elaborate analogy had both graphic and text components that integrated and mapped key features from an analog (a factory) to the target concept (an animal cell). The target features were the functions of the cell parts. In Experiment 1, eighth graders who
studied an analogy-enhanced text had greater immediate and 2-week recall of cell-part functions than students who studied a control text. In Experiment 2, sixth graders who studied an analogy-enhanced text
considered the target concept to be more understandable than students who studied a control text. The sixth
graders who studied the analogy-enhanced text also had greater immediate and 2-week retention, as measured by both recall and recognition. In both experiments, the analogy was interpreted as acting as a mediator between the students’ existing knowledge and the new knowledge in the text. The analogy mapped
a familiar, concrete schema onto that of the target concept, making the target concept more understandable and memorable. Implications for the meaningful learning of science text are discussed. © 1998 John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 35: 1129–1149, 1998.
In 1665, Robert Hooke examined thin slices of cork through a light microscope. Hooke noted that the cork seemed to consist of tiny cavities surrounded by thin walls. Hooke called the
cavities “cells” because they reminded him of the small rooms that monks lived in. More than
300 years later, Lewis Thomas (1974) wrote:
I have been trying to think of the earth as a kind of organism, but it is no go. I cannot
think of it this way. It is too big, too complex, with too many working parts lacking visible connections. The other night, driving through a hilly, wooded part of southern New
England, I wondered about this. If not like an organism, what is it like, what is it most
like? Then, satisfactorily for that moment, it came to me: it is most like a single cell. (p. 10)
Throughout the history of science, scientists and science educators have used analogies to
explain fundamentally important concepts (Brown, 1992; Clement, 1993; Gentner, 1989; Hesse,
1966; Hoffman, 1980; Lawson, 1993; Oppenheimer, 1956; Thagard, 1992; Venville & Treagust,
Correspondence to: S.M. Glynn
Contract grant sponsor: National Reading Research Center of University of Georgia and University of Maryland
Contract grant sponsor: U.S. Department of Education, contract grant number: PR/Award No. 117A20007
© 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
CCC 0022-4308/98/101129-21
1130
GLYNN AND TAKAHASHI
1997; Vosniadou & Ortony, 1989). The analogies serve as initial models for the concepts. It is
not surprising, therefore, that textbook authors use analogies to explain science concepts to students (Iding, 1997). Authors frequently preface their explanations with expressions such as
“similarly,” “likewise,” “just as,” and “that is comparable to.” These expressions are all ways
of saying, “Let me give you an analogy.”
Significance of the Study
The present study is significant because it directly responds to a need among science educators for insight into the nature of analogies and guidance on how to construct ones that are
pedagogically effective. Lawson (1993, p. 1213) expressed this need in a Journal of Research
in Science Teaching issue dedicated to this topic: “It follows then that a goal of science education research is to invent and evaluate the effectiveness of various sorts of analogies in the teaching of various theoretical concepts.” Thagard (1992, p. 537) similarly expressed this need by
emphasizing the important role that analogy plays in science teaching and by highlighting the
importance of the following research question: “What kinds of analogies are likely to be most
effective in increasing students’ understanding?”
Past Research on the Use of Analogies in Science Teaching
The present study builds upon existing findings (see reviews by Brown, 1993; Dagher,
1995a, 1995b, 1994, 1993; Duit, 1991; Glynn, Duit & Thiele, 1995; Iding, 1997) and extends
them by operationally defining and validating the concept of an elaborate analogy. This concept
can potentially serve as a conceptual blueprint for insight into the nature of effective instructional analogies and guidance on how to construct them. A consistent theme of the past research
findings on analogies in science text has unfortunately been the very inconsistency of the analogies’ effectiveness. Sometimes analogies have facilitated text learning, and other times they have
not (Gilbert, 1989). It is argued here that this inconsistency is due largely to weak operational
definitions of analogies, to constructions of analogies that have failed to map analog features
systematically onto target features, and to analogies that have largely ignored the important role
that visual imagery can play in the learning process. In an elaborate analogy, analog features
are systematically mapped onto target features, verbal and imagery processes are active, and
these processes mutually support one another.
Theoretical Framework
Ideally, analogies in text can help students to build meaningful relations between what they
already know and what they are setting out to learn. In general, this activity of building relations plays a critical role in constructivist views of learning science:
Learning science, therefore, should involve students in the construction of knowledge and
the creation of new ideas from what they already know. (Cavallo, 1996, p. 626; see also
Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994; Yager, 1995)
In particular, this activity of building relations between existing knowledge and new knowledge
plays an important role when interpreting students’ learning as a process of conceptual change
(Demastes, Good, & Peebles, 1996; Duit & Treagust, 1997; Hewson & Hewson, 1992; Strike
& Posner, 1992). Increasingly, this change is being interpreted as students learning progressively
ANALOGY-ENHANCED SCIENCE TEXT
1131
more sophisticated mental models of fundamentally important science concepts (Cavallo, 1996;
Glynn & Duit, 1995; Hafner & Stewart, 1995; Jensen & Finley, 1996; Penner, Giles, Lehrer, &
Schauble, 1997; White, 1995). Typically, these concepts represent complex systems with interacting components (e.g., an atom, a cell, an electric circuit). In this theoretical framework, familiar analogies (e.g., water is like electricity in some ways) can serve as early mental models
which students can use to form limited but meaningful understandings of these complex concepts. As the students’ develop cognitively and learn more science, they will evolve beyond
these simple situated analogies, adopting more sophisticated and powerful explanatory models
(Glynn & Duit, 1995; Iding, 1997; Lehrer & Schauble, 1998).
Unfortunately, authors’ analogies are often ineffective, failing to increase students’ recall of
text information (Gilbert, 1989). That is because authors, lacking guidelines for using analogies,
sometimes use them unsystematically, often causing confusion in students (Thiele & Treagust,
1994). The distinctions among a target concept, features of the concept, examples of the concept, and an analogy become blurred in students’ minds. One solution, of course, would be to
advise authors not to use analogies in textbooks. That would be unrealistic because authors, like
all human beings, are predisposed to think analogically and they will use analogies, consciously or unconsciously, during explanation (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Piaget, 1962). The better solution is to adopt guidelines for constructing and using analogies in science text. One source of
guidelines is the Teaching with Analogies Model (Glynn, 1991; Glynn et al., 1995; Harrison &
Treagust, 1993; Thiele & Treagust, 1995).
In the Teaching with Analogies Model, an analogy is drawn by transferring ideas from a familiar concept to an unfamiliar one. The familiar concept is called the analog and the unfamiliar one the target. Both the analog and the target have features (or subconcepts). If the analog
and the target share similar features, an analogy can be drawn between them. A systematic comparison, verbally or visually, between the features of the analog and target is called a mapping.
The guidelines in the Teaching with Analogies Model were developed from task analyses
(Glynn et al., 1995) of the analogies used in science textbooks by exemplary authors such as
Paul Hewitt (1993). A task analysis is “the process of breaking down an instructional task to determine its essential components and the relationship of those components” (Goetz, Alexander,
& Ash, 1992, p. 337; see also Ryder & Redding, 1993; Wiggs & Perez, 1988). The task analyses identified six guidelines for drawing analogies in science text: (a) Introduce the target concept, (b) remind readers of the analog concept, (c) identify relevant features of the target and
analog, (d) map similarities, (e) indicate where the analogy breaks down, and (f) draw conclusions.
Purpose of the Present Study
The purpose of the present study was to determine if the addition of an elaborate analogy
to a science text could enhance middle school students’ learning of a major concept. An elaborate analogy was defined as one with both graphic and text components that integrate and map
key features from an analog to a target concept. The elaborate analogy in the present study was
constructed following the guidelines in the Teaching with Analogies Model. The role of the analogy was to map a familiar, concrete schema (conceptual structure) onto a new, but in some ways
similar, schema, thereby making the new schema more memorable.
The participants in the present study were middle school students. In the age range of 10–14
years, important conceptual foundations for learning science are established (Helgeson, 1994,
Spector & Gibson, 1991). The children progress from concrete, intuitive thinking to abstract,
reflective thinking and begin to develop initial “mental models” of major science concepts
1132
GLYNN AND TAKAHASHI
(Carey, 1985; Glynn & Duit, 1995; Kuhn, Amsel, & O’Loughlin, 1988; Lawson, 1993; Piaget,
1964). These initial models often take the form of analogies.
The animal cell was selected as the target concept to be learned by the students. The animal cell represents a complex conceptual system that includes many interrelated functional parts
(e.g., membrane, nucleus, and cytoplasm). In general, the cell plays a fundamental role in middle school students’ understanding of life processes because it is the basic structural and functional unit of living things. A basic understanding of the cell is considered to be an essential
component of scientific literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989,
1993; Finley, Stewart, & Yarroch, 1982).
Experiment 1
In Experiment 1, eighth graders were asked to read either an analogy-enhanced text or a
standard control text about the cell. The analogy-enhanced text compared an analog concept, a
factory, to the target concept, the cell. It was expected that the mapping of the familiar, concrete
factory features onto the less familiar, more abstract cell features would make the cell features
more meaningful and therefore more memorable. Accordingly, it was hypothesized that the elaborate analogy would enhance the students’ recall of the target concept’s features, both immediately after text study and 2 weeks later.
After text recall, the students were asked if the cell reminded them of anything, to examine their awareness of analogies. It was expected that the students in the analogy-enhanced condition would be reminded primarily of the factory analogy, whereas the students in the control
condition would be reminded of either various spontaneous analogies or no analogy.
Method
Participants
The participants were 58 eighth-grade students (33 boys and 25 girls) in three life science
classes of a middle school located in a university city in the southeast United States. All students were between 12 and 14 years old [mean (M) ⫽ 13.59] and came from middle to upper
socioeconomic homes.
Design and Materials
The design included one between-subjects variable, text condition (control and analogy-enhanced), and one within-subjects variable, retention interval (immediate and 2-weeks later). In
the control condition, students read a 1,014-word text on the animal cell that was adapted from
a unit on cells in a leading middle school textbook, General science (Alexander et al., 1989).
This textbook was selected because its coverage of animal cells is typical of middle school textbooks and because it included only one short analogy, comparing mitochondria to “powerhouses.” This analogy was deleted, so as not to confound the experimental manipulation. The text
and an accompanying diagram of an animal cell focused on seven of the major cell parts and
their functions. These parts were the cell membrane, the nucleus, the cytoplasm, the ribosomes,
the endoplasmic reticulum, the Golgi bodies, and the mitochondria. The following excerpt about
the cell membrane is representative of the text:
ANALOGY-ENHANCED SCIENCE TEXT
1133
Although cells have a wide variety of shapes, sizes, and colors, every cell has an outer
covering. The covering that surrounds the cell is called the cell membrane. The structure
of the cell membrane allows certain materials to pass through it and keep other materials
out. The cell membrane has tiny openings that let water, food, and oxygen enter the cell.
Waste products exit through the cell membrane. The cell membrane prevents harmful substances from entering and keeps useful substances inside.
In the experimental condition, students read an analogy-enhanced text that was created by
adding an elaborate analogy to the standard text. The elaborate analogy was inserted in the beginning of the standard text, just after the introduction and the illustration of an animal cell. The
analogy compared a factory (analog) to an animal cell (target concept)—this is a popular analogy, often recommended in journals for teachers (e.g., Cavese, 1976; Glynn, 1995).
Following the Teaching with Analogies Model (Glynn & Duit, 1995), the analogy was constructed to enhance the standard text and ensure that the following six operations were carried
out in this approximate order:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Introduce the target concept, the cell, to students.
Remind students of what they know of the analog concept, a factory.
Identify relevant features of the cell and a factory.
Map similarities between the cell and a factory.
Indicate where the analogy between the cell and a factory breaks down.
Draw conclusions about the functions of cell structures.
The analogy used illustration (Figure 1) and text to identify seven corresponding features
(parts) of the factory and cell, map the features, point out where the analogy breaks down, and
draw conclusions. The text component of the analogy explained to students:
You might think of a cell as a tiny factory that takes in raw materials, performs many
tasks, and makes products. Different people in the factory work at machines doing different jobs. Likewise, each part of the cell has a special job. Together, the parts keep the
cell working properly. Here are some similarities between factory parts and cell parts:
Figure 1.
Analogy drawn between a factory and an animal cell.
1134
GLYNN AND TAKAHASHI
FACTORY
1. restricted entrance/exit
2. control center
3. air inside the factory
4. production machines
5. inside delivery and storage
6. packaging and outside delivery
7. power generators
ANIMAL CELL
membrane
nucleus
cytoplasm
protein-making ribosomes
endoplasmic reticulum
Golgi apparatus
mitochondria
Think carefully about each of the above similarities and study the illustration. But remember that this “factory-cell” analogy, like all analogies, breaks down in places. For example, the membrane envelops the entire cell and has many tiny openings, whereas a factory has only a few entrances in specific locations. In general, however, if you remember
how an animal cell is like a factory, it will be easier for you to remember the cell parts
and their functions.
Measures
Retention. After text study and again 2 weeks later, all students were administered a recall
test that listed the seven major cell parts discussed in the text and asked the students to explain
(in writing) the function of each.
Awareness of Analogy. After text recall and again 2 weeks later, students received the written question: “Did the way the cell works remind you of anything similar?” Students responded (in writing) “yes” or “no” and were asked to “explain what it was that the cell reminded you
of.” (The awareness of analogy question was asked after recall so it would not influence the
standard recall procedure. If the question were asked before recall, it could serve as a prompt
to think analogically.)
Procedure
Within each class, the students were randomly assigned to the experimental and control conditions and successively given a series of condition-appropriate booklets that contained instructions, materials, and measures. Each booklet was allotted a specified period of time (see
instructions) and was collected before the next booklet was distributed. All students indicated
that they had enough time to complete the booklets, and none needed the additional time that
was routinely offered. In their first booklet, which included the text, the students read the following instructions:
In the next 25 minutes, please study the following text carefully and learn the parts of cells
and the functions of those parts. When you finish reading the text one time, please continue to review it and study it until the time is up. After 25 minutes is up, the booklets
will be collected and you’ll be asked to recall, as best you can, the functions of the cell
parts. Please study quietly.
In their second booklet, the students were given the recall test which consisted of the names
of the seven cell parts discussed in the text and the following instructions:
ANALOGY-ENHANCED SCIENCE TEXT
1135
In the next 15 minutes, please explain as best you can, what the following cell parts do.
It’s OK to explain in your own words and it’s OK to guess. Try to explain as much as you
can, and be as specific as you can. Write complete sentences. Think about what you read
and saw in your text.
The students then were given the awareness of analogy question. Two weeks later, the students
received a third booklet that once again contained the recall test, followed by the awareness of
analogy question. The students were not informed in advance about this delayed recall test.
Scoring
The recall responses and the awareness of analogy responses were independently scored by
two examiners. The examiners’ scores were then compared. There was an interrater reliability
of r ⫽ .96 on the recall responses. Students received one point for each correctly recalled cell
part function. Disagreements between the examiners on the recall responses were resolved by
discussion. There was complete agreement on the awareness of analogy responses.
Results and Discussion
Data Analyses
A 2 ⫻ 2 analysis of variance with one between-subjects variable, text condition, and one
within-subjects variable, retention interval, was conducted to examine students’ retention of text
information, as measured by their recall scores. Next, chi-square tests of independence were
conducted to examine students’ awareness of analogies, as measured by their “yes” or “no” answers when asked whether a cell’s workings reminded them of anything similar. These 2 ⫻ 2
chi-square tests included two variables, text condition and students’ answers (yes/no), and were
performed for each retention interval. Finally, tests using Student’s t statistic were used to
examine the number of features in students’ analogies in the two text conditions, at each retention interval. In all data analyses, a Type 1 error probability of ␣ ⬍ .05 was used to test hypothesized effects.
Students’ Retention of Information
After text study and again 2 weeks later, the students’ retention of text information was assessed by asking the students to recall the functions of seven major parts of the cell. The potential range of scores was from zero to seven. The group means and standard deviations are reported in Table 1.
The effects of text condition and retention interval on recall scores were examined using an
analysis of variance. The results indicated that the students who studied analogy-enhanced text
had significantly higher recall scores (M ⫽ 6.00) than the students who studied the control text
(M ⫽ 4.90), F(1, 56) ⫽ 7.96, p ⫽ .007, mean standard error (MSE) ⫽ 4.44. The immediate recall scores (M ⫽ 5.59) and the 2-week recall scores (M ⫽ 5.31) did not differ significantly, F(1,
56) ⫽ 3.61, p ⫽ .063, MSE ⫽ 0.61. The interaction effect also was not statistically significant,
F ⬍ 1.
These findings support the view that the elaborate analogy mapped features of a familiar,
concrete analog onto features of the target concept, thereby making the target concept more
1136
GLYNN AND TAKAHASHI
Table 1
Eighth graders’ recall of cell information as a function of text condition and retention interval
Retention Interval
Text Condition
After Text Study
2 Weeks Later
Row M
6.07
1.16
5.93
1.22
6.00
5.10
1.93
5.59
4.69
1.87
5.31
4.90
Analogy-enhanced
M
SD
Control
M
SD
Column M
memorable to students. In addition, the findings suggest that the retention advantage associated
with the elaborate analogy is fairly durable. This advantage was apparent both immediately after text study and 2 weeks later.
Students’ Awareness of Analogies
The students were asked whether a cell’s workings reminded them of anything similar. The
students who answered “yes” then explained what it was. These data are summarized in Tables
2 and 3, respectively.
After text study, the number of students who answered “yes” was 28 (97%) in the analogy-enhanced text condition and 26 (90%) in the control text condition—these numbers were
equivalent, ␹2(1, N ⫽ 58) ⫽ 1.07, p ⫽ .30. Each student who answered “yes” in the analogyenhanced condition reported either one or two analogies (M ⫽ 1.11). The analogies and their
frequencies were: “a factory” (23 of the 31 analogies), “the human body” (3), “a team” (2), “a
business” (1), “a movie studio” (1), and “the universe” (1). Each student who answered “yes”
in the control condition also reported one or two analogies (M ⫽ 1.08). These analogies and
their frequencies were: “the human body” (16 of the 28 analogies), “a factory” (3), “society”
(2), “the digestive system” (2), “a building” (1), “a house” (1), “a hospital” (1), “a clock” (1),
Table 2
Number of eighth graders who were reminded of an analogy as a function of text condition
and retention interval
Retention Interval
Text Condition
Analogy-enhanced
Yes, reminded
No, not reminded
Control
Yes, reminded
No, not reminded
Note. N ⫽ 29 in each text condition.
After Text Study
2 Weeks Later
28
1
29
0
26
3
26
3
ANALOGY-ENHANCED SCIENCE TEXT
1137
Table 3
Samples of eighth graders’ response to the question, “What does a cell remind you of?”
Analogy-Enhanced Condition
Taylor’s factory analogy: “The cell reminds me of a factory because every part has its own job. The cell
membrane is like the entrance. The nucleus is like the control room. the ribosomes are like machines
that make proteins. The endoplasmic reticulum is like a conveyor belt and the Golgi bodies are like
packaging machines.”
Andrea’s factory analogy: “The cell reminds me of a factory because its parts can be compared to the
parts of a factory: the cell membrane to the factory walls and guards, the nucleus to the control area of
the factory, the cytoplasm to the air inside the factory, the endoplasmic reticulum to a conveyor belt in a
factory, and the mitochondria the factory’s source of power.”
Ben’s factory analogy: “The cell could remind you of a working factory, since a factory has similar parts
such as the nucleus and the boss or command center. It also has parts similar to cytoplasm, mitochondria, and ribosomes.”
Patrick’s factory analogy: “The cell reminds me of a factory. They have many parts that are alike. For
example, ther ribosomes are like the machines that take raw materials and turn them into a product. The
endoplasmic reticulum is like the conveyor belts that take the product and get it packaged, like the Golgi bodies.”
Martin’s factory analogy: “The cell remindes me of a factory. Everything has a job or a purpose. It almost seems like the cell’s nucleus is a brain.”
Control Condition
Anne’s human body analogy: “The function of a cell reminds me of the function of the entire body. All
the parts work together to make the whole function successful.”
Robert’s society analogy: “The way the cell parts work together in order to help the cell reminds me of
society since eveyone is different and has different jobs in life, but have a common goals to fulfill of
life, love, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Jenny’s hospital analogy: “The cell reminds me of a hospital. You have many people (organelles) that
work together to help you and your body.”
Ricky’s clock analogy: “The way a cell works reminds me of a machine because everything works almost like a clock works.”
William’s no analogy response: “The cell doesn’t remind me of anything else. If it reminds me of anything, its the cell.”
Note. For readability, the students’ spelling and punctuation errors have been corrected.
and “the rain and rock cycles” (1). Highly similar analogies were grouped together. For example, the “human body” group included a “person” analogy and a “human being” analogy.
Two weeks later, the students again were asked whether a cell’s workings reminded them
of anything similar. The number of students who answered “yes” was 29 (100%) in the analogy-enhanced text condition and 26 (90%) in the control text condition—these numbers were not
significantly different, ␹2(1, N ⫽ 58) ⫽ 3.16, p ⫽ .076. Each student who answered “yes” in
the analogy-enhanced condition reported either one or two analogies (M ⫽ 1.24). The analogies
and their frequencies were: “a factory” (25 of the 36 analogies), “the earth” (8), “a team” (2),
and “the human body” (1). Each student who reported “yes” in the control condition reported
one analogy—these were “a human body” (10 of the 26 analogies), “the earth” (8), “a factory”
(4), “society” (2), “the rock cycle” (1), and “an animal” (1). It is noteworthy that the “earth”
analogy was not reported immediately after text study but was reported 2 weeks later by a num-
1138
GLYNN AND TAKAHASHI
ber of students in both conditions. These students explained that during the retention interval,
one of the lessons taught by their teacher emphasized that the earth is an ecological system with
interacting parts. This lesson inspired these students to compare the earth with the cell.
In summary, these findings indicate that almost all eighth graders were reminded of an analogy of some sort when studying about the cell’s workings. Almost all analogies were reasonable in that they represented systems with interrelated parts that work together. As expected, the
students in the analogy-enhanced condition were reminded most often of a factory. The students
in the control condition reported a wide variety of analogies, with the human body being the
most frequent.
A close examination of the analogies revealed that some included more cell features than
others. For example, Taylor’s factory analogy (Table 3) correctly maps five cell features: membrane/entrance, nucleus/control room, ribosomes/protein machines, endoplasmic reticulum/
conveyor belt, and Golgi bodies/packaging machines. This amount of detail can be viewed as
a measure of analogy quality, although a limited one because students were not explicitly asked
to include features in their explanations. Tests using Student’s t statistic indicated that after text
study, students in the analogy-enhanced condition included more correct features (M ⫽ 3.68) in
their analogies than students in the control condition (M ⫽ 2.71) and that this was again the
case 2 weeks later (M ⫽ 3.51 and 2.14, respectively), both ps ⬍ 05. These findings, with amount
of detail as the criterion, suggest that the analogies of students in the analogy-enhanced condition were of higher quality than those of students in the control condition.
Even the “factory” analogies spontaneously generated by some students in the control condition were less detailed than those reported by students in the in the analogy-enhanced condition. For example, Zack and Phillip, two students in the control condition, spontaneously generated the following factory analogies:
The cell sort of reminds me of a factory. Everybody has a different job, and when they do
it right, everything goes smoothly. (Zack)
It reminds me of a factory. Each area has a different thing to do and it kind of works in a
factory format. (Phillip)
Now compare Zack and Phillip’s factory analogies to those of Janet and Greg, students in the
analogy-enhanced condition:
The cell reminds me of a factory. Each part of the cell has its similarities to a factory. The
cell membrane are the doors. The nucleus runs things. The Golgi bodies package stuff,
etc. I think that the analogy helped me to remember. The analogy of a factory to a cell.
(Janet)
The cell reminds me of a factory because the nucleus is the main control center, the cell
membrane is the walls, the mitochondria is the factory part that makes things (food), the
endoplasmic reticulum is the machine that transports the food and the Golgi bodies is
where it is stored. (Greg)
Janet and Greg’s analogies had depth—they explicitly identified and mapped a number of cell
features to a factory. Zack and Phillip’s spontaneous factory analogies were insightful but vague
in comparison to Janet and Greg’s.
Experiment 2
Experiment 2 replicated and extended Experiment 1, with younger students—sixth graders.
As in Experiment 1, it was expected that the mapping of the more familiar, concrete analog onto
ANALOGY-ENHANCED SCIENCE TEXT
1139
the less familiar, more abstract target would make the target more memorable. It was therefore
hypothesized that the elaborate analogy would facilitate the sixth graders’ retention of the target concept’s features.
In this experiment, two measures of retention were used: recall (as in Experiment 1) and
recognition (matching). A recognition measure was added because it is a more sensitive measure of retention than recall and is often more suitable for younger students, such as these sixth
graders, than the more cognitively demanding recall procedure (Searleman & Herrmann, 1994).
As in Experiment 1, the students were asked whether the cell reminded them of anything.
It was expected that the students in the analogy-enhanced condition would be primarily reminded of the factory analogy, whereas students in the control condition would be reminded
of various spontaneous analogies or no analogy. These students, because they were sixth graders, were expected to generate fewer spontaneous analogies than the eighth graders in Experiment 1.
In this experiment, the students were asked to rate the target concept in terms of its interest, importance, and understandability. They did this before text study, afterward, and 2 weeks
later. It was expected that the mapping of the analog onto the less familiar, more abstract target
would induce the students in the analogy-enhanced condition to perceive the target as more interesting, important, and understandable than the students in the control condition.
Method
Participants
The participants were 32 sixth-grade students (18 boys and 14 girls) in two life science
classes from the same middle school as Experiment 1. All students were between 10 and 12
years old (M ⫽ 11.67) and came from middle to upper socioeconomic homes.
Design and Materials
The design included one between-subjects variable, text condition (control and analogyenhanced), and one within-subjects variable, retention interval (immediate and 2 weeks later).
The control text and the analogy-enhanced text were identical to those used in Experiment 1.
Measures
Questionnaire. Before text study, after text study, and again 2 weeks later, the sixth graders
responded to three items. The first item was, “How interesting a topic do you think the cell is,
compared to other topics in life science?” The response alternatives were on a Likert-type, 5point scale that included “not interesting,” “a little interesting,” “somewhat interesting,” “interesting,” and “very interesting.” The second item was, “How important do you think it is to understand the cell, compared to other topics in life science?” The response alternatives were “not
important,” “a bit important,” “somewhat important,” “important,” and “very important.” The
third item was, “How well do you understand the cell, compared to other topics in life science?”
The response alternatives were “not well,” “a little bit,” “somewhat,” “well,” and “very well.”
Retention. After the questionnaire and text study, all students were administered a recall
test that was identical to that used in Experiment 1. It listed the seven major cell parts discussed
1140
GLYNN AND TAKAHASHI
in the text and asked the students to explain (in writing) the function of each. The recall test was
then collected and the students were administered a recognition test that listed the seven major
cell parts and asked the students to match those parts to provided statements of cell-part functions. Two weeks later, the students again were given the the recall test and the recognition test.
Awareness of Analogy. After the recognition text and again 2 weeks later, the students received the same question asked in Experiment 1: “Did the way the cell works remind you of
anything similar?” Students responded (in writing) “yes” or “no” and were asked to “explain
what it was that the cell reminded you of.”
Procedure
The procedure was similar to that in Experiment 1. Within each class, the students were
randomly assigned to the experimental and control conditions and successively given a series
of condition-appropriate booklets. In their first booklet, all students responded to the three-item
questionnaire about interest, importance, and understandability of the topic. Then, the students
read the instructions reported in Experiment 1 and studied a text.
In their second booklet, the students were again given the questionnaire, with these instructions: “Think about what you read and saw in your text about the cell, when you answer
the questions. You do not have to put the same answers that you put before—it’s OK to change
your mind.” After the questionnaire, the students were given the recall test and the instructions
reported previously.
In their third booklet, the students were given the recognition text which consisted of the
names of seven cell parts and a randomized list of the seven cell-part functions as described in
the text. The students were instructed to match the cell parts to their functions by writing the
cell part name next to each function. The students then responded to the awareness of analogy
question.
Two weeks later, the students received a fourth booklet that once again contained, a questionnaire and a recall test. The students then received a fifth booklet that contained a recognition test, followed by the awareness of analogy question. The students were not informed in advance of these tests.
Scoring
All measures were independently scored by two examiners, and their sets of scores were
then compared. There was complete agreement on the responses to the questionnaire, the awareness of analogy measure, and the recognition measure. There was an interrater reliability of r
⫽ .93 on the recall measure; the disagreements between the examiners on this measure were resolved by discussion.
Results and Discussion
Data Analyses
An analysis of variance similar to that described in Experiment 1 was conducted to examine the effects of text condition and retention interval on students’ retention of text information.
Analyses of covariance were then conducted to examine the effects of text condition and reten-
ANALOGY-ENHANCED SCIENCE TEXT
1141
tion interval on interest, importance, and difficulty ratings, respectively. In each analysis of covariance, the corresponding before-study ratings served as a covariate. Next, chi-square tests
similar to those described in Experiment 1 were conducted to examine students’ awareness of
analogies. Finally, tests using Student’s t statistic were used to compare the number of features
in students’ analogies in the two text conditions, at each retention interval. In all data analyses,
a Type 1 error probability of ␣ ⬍ .05 was used to test hypothesized effects.
Students’ Retention of Information
After text study and again 2 weeks later, the students’ retention of information was assessed,
first by asking the students to recall the functions of seven major cell parts, and second, by asking the students to recognize (by matching) the seven parts with their functions. In both measures, the potential range of scores was from zero to seven. The effects of text condition and retention interval on recall and recognition scores were examined using analyses of variance. The
group means and standard deviations are reported in Tables 4 and 5.
The students who studied the analogy-enhanced text had significantly higher recall scores
(M ⫽ 4.85) than those who studied the control text (M ⫽ 2.88), F(1, 30) ⫽ 14.51, p ⬍ .001,
MSE ⫽ 4.27. In addition, the immediate recall scores were significantly higher (M ⫽ 4.50) than
the 2-week recall scores (M ⫽ 3.22), F(1, 30) ⫽ 52.2, p ⬍ .001, MSE ⫽ 0.50. The interaction
was not statistically significant, F ⬍ 1.
The recognition results were similar to the recall results. The students who studied the analogy-enhanced text had significantly higher recognition scores (M ⫽ 5.25) than those who studied the control text (M ⫽ 3.76), F(1, 30) ⫽ 11.13, p ⫽ .002, MSE ⫽ 3.23, and the immediate
recognition scores were significantly higher (M ⫽ 5.19) than the 2-week recognition scores (M
⫽ 3.82), F(1, 30) ⫽ 44.27, p ⬍ .001, MSE ⫽ 0.68. The interaction effect was not statistically
significant, F(1, 30) ⫽ 3.29, p ⫽ .080, MSE ⫽ 0.68.
Taken together, the recall and recognition findings are consistent with the view that the elaborate analogy mapped features of a familiar, concrete analog onto features of the target, thereby making the target more memorable to students. As was the case in Experiment 1, the findings suggest that the retention advantage associated with the elaborate analogy was a durable
one, at least over the 2-week interval used in this study. The findings also suggest that the elaborate analogy had a greater effect on sixth graders’ retention than on that of eighth graders. A
comparison of main effect sizes in the two experiments indicated that the elaborate analogy accounted for almost three times more variance in sixth graders’ recall (␻2 ⫽ .30) than in eighth
graders’ recall (␻2 ⫽ .11).
Table 4
Sixth-graders’ recall of cell information as a function of text condition and retention interval
Retention Interval
Text Condition
Analogy-enhanced
M
SD
Control
M
SD
Column M
After Text Study
2 Weeks Later
Row M
5.44
1.59
4.25
1.84
4.85
3.56
1.36
4.50
2.19
1.33
3.22
2.88
1142
GLYNN AND TAKAHASHI
Table 5
Sixth-graders’ recognition of cell information as a function of text condition and retention interval
Retention Interval
Text Condition
Analogy-enhanced
M
SD
Control
M
SD
Column M
After Text Study
2 Weeks Later
Row M
5.75
1.39
4.75
1.57
5.25
4.63
1.36
5.19
2.88
1.26
3.82
3.76
Students’ Importance, Interest, and Difficulty Ratings
Before text study, immediately after text study, and again 2 weeks later, the students rated
the target concept in terms of importance, interest, and understandability. Analyses of covariance were used to examine the effects of text condition and retention interval on interest, importance, and difficulty ratings, respectively. In each analysis, the corresponding before-study
ratings served as a covariate. The adjusted mean ratings after text study and 2 weeks later are
reported in Table 6.
The interest ratings from students who studied the analogy-enhanced text (M ⫽ 3.01) tended to be higher than those from students who studied the control text (M ⫽ 2.55), but the difference was not statistically significant, F(1, 29) ⫽ 3.75, p ⫽ .063, MSE ⫽ 0.90. The effects of
the retention interval and the interaction were not significant, both Fs ⬍ 1.
The importance ratings from students who studied the analogy-enhanced text (M ⫽ 3.79)
and students who studied the control text (M ⫽ 3.53) did not differ significantly, F(1, 29) ⫽
1.31, p ⫽ .26, MSE ⫽ 0.79. Likewise, the effects of the retention interval, F ⬍ 1, and the interaction, F(1, 29) ⫽ 2.51, p ⫽ .12, MSE ⫽ 0.24, were not significant.
The understandability ratings from students who studied the analogy-enhanced text (M ⫽
2.96) were significantly higher than those from students who studied the control text (M ⫽ 2.32),
Table 6
Sixth-graders’ interest, importance, and difficulty adjusted mean ratings as a function of text condition
and retention interval
Retention Interval
Text Condition
Analogy-enhanced
Interest
Importance
Understandability
Control
Interest
Importance
Understandability
After Text Study
2 Weeks Later
Row M
3.23
3.78
3.17
2.79
3.79
2.75
3.01
3.79
2.96
2.90
3.72
2.64
2.21
3.34
2.00
2.55
3.53
2.32
Note. The means were adjusted on the basis of the students’ before-study ratings.
ANALOGY-ENHANCED SCIENCE TEXT
1143
F(1, 29) ⫽ 6.58, p ⫽ .016, MSE ⫽ 1.01. The effects of the retention interval and the interaction were not significant, both Fs ⬍ 1.
In conclusion, the questionnaire findings indicate that students in the analogy-enhanced
condition perceived the target concept to be more understandable than students in the control
condition. These findings suggest that understandability may play a role as a key mechanism,
or intervening variable, by which the elaborate analogy influences students’ retention. Students
in the analogy-enhanced condition understood the target concept better and therefore remembered it better.
Students’ Awareness of Analogies
The students were asked if a cell’s workings reminded them of anything similar. The students answering “yes” then explained what it was that a cell reminded them of. These data are
summarized in Tables 7 and 8.
After text study, the number of students who answered “yes” was 16 (100%) in the analogy-enhanced text condition and only 6 (38%) in the control text condition—this difference was
statistically significant, ␹2(1, N ⫽ 32) ⫽ 14.55, p ⬍ .001. Each student who reported “yes” in
the analogy-enhanced condition reported either one or two analogies (M ⫽ 1.06). The analogies
and their frequencies were: “a factory” (13 of the 17 analogies), “a business” (1), “a car” (1),
“an airport” (1), and “an egg” (1). Each student who answered “yes” in the control condition
reported one analogy—these were “a factory” (2 of the 6 analogies), “the human body” (2), “the
atom” (1), and “a store” (1).
Two weeks later, the students again were asked whether a cell’s workings reminded them
of anything similar. The number of students who answered “yes” was again 16 (100%) in the
analogy-enhanced text condition and 6 (38%) in the control text condition, ␹2(1, N ⫽ 32) ⫽
14.55, p ⬍ .001. Each student who answered “yes” in the analogy-enhanced condition reported either one or two analogies (M ⫽ 1.13). The analogies and their frequencies were: “a factory” (14 of the 18 analogies), “a car” (1), “a restaurant” (1), “a toy” (1), and “an egg” (1). Each
student who reported “yes” in the control condition reported one analogy—these were “a human body” (3 of the 6 analogies), “a factory” (1), “an atom” (1), and “a store” (1).
In summary, all the students in the analogy-enhanced condition were reminded of an analogy; however, only a minority of students in the control condition were reminded of one. This
finding, with sixth graders, contrasts sharply with that of Experiment 1, with eighth graders. AlTable 7
Number of sixth-graders who were reminded of an analogy as a function of
text condition and retention interval
Retention Interval
Text Condition
After Text Study
2 Weeks Later
16
0
16
0
6
10
6
10
Analogy-enhanced
Yes, reminded
No, not reminded
Control
Yes, reminded
No, not reminded
Note. N ⫽ 16 in each text condition.
1144
GLYNN AND TAKAHASHI
Table 8
Samples of sixth graders’ responses to the question, “What does a cell remind you of?”
Analogy-Enhanced Condition
Lindsay’s factory analogy: “The cell reminds me of a factory. The nucleus is the director. The cell membrane is the guards. The Golgi bodies are the different stations that people work at.”
Olivia’s factory analogy: “The cell reminds me of a small factory because there are many things to do to
make it work.” The membrane is like the door and the nucleus is the command center.
Amy’s factory analogy: “The cell reminds me of factory. Because each part carries out a task like machines in a real factory.” The nucleus is in charge. The ribosomes are machines that produce things.
Julian’s factory analogy: “The cell reminds me of a factory because all the parts of a cell have to work
together and if one part screws up then the whole cell messes up.”
Stevie’s factory analogy: “A cell is like a factory. Different parts have different job, just like in a factory.”
Control Condition
Joe’s atom analogy: “The cell kind of reminds me of an atom. I think that the atom has a nucleus as
well.”
Bryan’s human body analogy: “The cell reminds me of a human body because of how everything works
together.”
Jerry’s person analogy: “The cell reminds me of a person. The nucleus is like a brain. The cell membrane is like the mouth.”
Rachel’s store analogy: “The cell reminds me of a store, with the nucleus the manager.”
Gwen’s no analogy response: “It doesn’t remind me of anything in particular.”
Note. For readability, the students’ spelling and punctuation errors have been corrected.
most all the eighth graders, regardless of which condition they were in, were reminded of an
analogy. It appears, therefore, that the cognitive development of middle school students plays
an important role in their spontaneous generation of analogies during learning.
In other respects, the findings of Experiment 2 paralleled those of Experiment 1: namely,
the students in the analogy-enhanced condition were reminded most often of a factory, but reported several other analogies as well. As can be seen in Table 8, these other analogies and those
reported in the control condition were reasonable in that they represented systems with interrelated parts that work together. Tests using Student’s t statistic indicated that after text study, students in the analogy-enhanced condition included more correct features (M ⫽ 3.16) in their
analogies than students in the control condition (M ⫽ 2.11), and that this was again the case 2
weeks later (M ⫽ 2.73 and 1.32, respectively), both ps ⬍ .05. As in Experiment 1, these findings suggest that analogies of students in the analogy-enhanced condition were of higher quality than those of students in the control condition.
General Discussion
The present study examined the role that an elaborate analogy can play when middle school
students learn a major concept from a science text. The analog was a factory and the target concept was the animal cell. By mapping the features of the relatively concrete, familiar analog
onto the more abstract, less familiar target, the analogy presumably acted as a mediator and
made the corresponding features of the target more understandable and therefore memorable.
ANALOGY-ENHANCED SCIENCE TEXT
1145
The analogy facilitated students’ recall of target features both immediately after text study and
2 weeks later. Thus, the effect of the analogy was a stable one.
Although both eighth graders and sixth graders benefited from the elaborate analogy, the
sixth graders benefited more. The sixth graders’ relative level of cognitive development most
likely accounted for this difference. Sixth graders are often in a transition between concrete, intuitive thinking and more abstract, reflective thinking (Carey, 1985; Kuhn et al., 1988; Lawson,
1993; Metz, 1995; Piaget, 1964). The analogy provided both a conceptual foundation and a
bridge to understanding the relatively abstract, less familiar target concept.
The eighth graders benefited as well from the concrete instructional support that the elaborate analogy afforded, but they appeared to be less dependent on it, as evidenced by their spontaneous analogies. Almost all the eighth graders in the no-analogy control condition thought of
various analogies for the target, but only a minority of sixth graders did. One explanation for
this finding is that some of the sixth graders simply lacked the content-area knowledge they
needed to generate analogies. However, another explanation is also possible: It may be that some
of the sixth graders had the content-area knowledge to construct analogies, but not the metacognitive awareness to strategically do so. In a review of the development of strategy use in children, Pressley and McCormick (1995) concluded: “When given a memory task, students often
fail to use a memory strategy that they could use if given a small amount of instruction about
how to apply the strategy to the task in question” (p. 29). Thus, it may be that some of the sixth
graders in the present study could have constructed analogies if they were taught how to do so.
This is certainly a promising direction for future research; however, caution is called for. If the
sixth graders in question are not developmentally ready to learn an analogy-construction strategy, they might learn it by rote and be unable to apply it in other situations.
The students’ analogies in the analogy-enhanced condition were of better quality than those
of students in the control condition, with quality defined in terms of the number of correct features. However, the spontaneous analogies of students in the control condition were nevertheless quite reasonable and insightful. Most of these analogies described systems with functional,
interacting parts (e.g., the human body, a team, and society) and were based on concepts in the
students’ daily lives.
In terms of practical implications, the findings of this study clearly support the use of analogies in middle school textbooks. Previous findings often have been negative or confounded
methodologically, providing little support (e.g., Bean, Searles, Singer, & Cowen, 1990; Gilbert,
1989). The present findings suggest that text analogies need to be carefully thought out to be
effective. The elaborate analogy in the present study was crafted to perform six operations for
students: introduce the target, remind students about the analog, identify relevant features, map
similarities, indicate where the analogy breaks down, and draw conclusions. These operations
provided a blueprint for constructing an elaborate analogy about the cell. These operations are
equally well suited for explaining many other relatively complex science concepts (e.g., the
atom, the human eye, and an electric circuit) that are routinely introduced to students in the middle grades. By following these operations, the textbook author can increase the likelihood that
an analogy will be productive.
If an analogy is not used carefully, it can be counterproductive, causing students to form
misconceptions (Duit, 1991; Glynn et al., 1995; Thiele & Treagust, 1994). For this reason, the
students in the present study were warned that the factory analogy, like all analogies, breaks
down in places (e.g., a factory has only a few entrances, whereas a membrane has many tiny
openings). This warning was apparently effective because no analogy-based misconceptions
(e.g., the “floor” of the cell) were detected in the recall of students who received the elaborate
analogy.
1146
GLYNN AND TAKAHASHI
In terms of theoretical implications, the findings of this study suggest that analogies play
an important role in the meaningful learning of science text, particularly when learning is interpreted from a constructivist perspective (e.g., Cavallo, 1996; Demastes et al., 1996; Yager,
1995). The students’ adoption of the elaborate analogy and their generation of spontaneous
analogies represented efforts by the students to connect familiar schemas with new ones—these
were efforts to make learning meaningful. Meaningful text learning is, from this perspective, relational and constructive in nature, not rote (Holliday, Yore, & Alvermann, 1994; Glynn & Muth,
1994; Mayer, 1989; Tobin, Tippins, & Gallard, 1994). It involves integrating existing knowledge with new knowledge to develop mental models that function as explanatory tools (Glynn
& Duit, 1995). For middle school students, carefully crafted analogies can serve as initial mental models. As the students develop cognitively and learn more knowledge, they will adopt more
sophisticated models.
The present study had at least two limitations that should be addressed in future studies.
One concerns the familiarity of the students with the analog concept, a factory. Although all students reported that they were familiar with a factory, it is likely that some were more familiar
than others. Random assignment to conditions controlled for this variable; however, it would be
useful in future studies to precisely assess the students’ familiarity with the analog by means of
a rating scale. The degree of familiarity could then be taken into account when analyzing and
interpreting data. A second limitation of the present study is that the students received only one
elaborate analogy—the “cell is like a factory.” As noted previously, this is a very popular analogy often recommended in journals for teachers; however, additional elaborate analogies (e.g.,
the eye is like a camera) should be developed and examined in future studies to determine how
well the present findings generalize.
Another direction for future research involves teaching middle school students the operations used to craft an elaborate analogy. In light of the effectiveness of the elaborate analogy in
the present study, it is well worth the effort to develop strategies by which students can construct and refine their own analogies and become more autonomous in their meaningful learning of science text. An elaborate analogy represents an instructional tool that can promote meaningful text learning by building a conceptual bridge between students’ existing knowledge and
the new knowledge they are setting out to learn.
The work reported here was prepared with partial support to the first author from the National Reading Research Center (NRRC) of the University of Georgia and University of Maryland. It was supported
under the Educational Research and Development Centers Program (PR/Award No. 117A20007) as administered by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. The
findings and opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of the National
Reading Research Center, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, or the U.S. Department
of Education.
References
Alexander, P., Fiegel, M., Foehr, S.K., Harris, A.F., Krajkovich, J.G., May, K.W., Tzimopoulos, N.D., & Voltmer, R.K. (1989). General science: Book one. Morristown, NJ: Silver
Burdett & Ginn.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for
all Americans. Washington, DC: Author.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: Author.
Bean, T.W., Searles, D., Singer, H., & Cowen, S. (1990). Learning concepts from biology
ANALOGY-ENHANCED SCIENCE TEXT
1147
text through pictorial analogies and an analogical study guide. Journal of Educational Research,
83, 233–237.
Brown, D.E. (1992). Using examples and analogies to remediate misconceptions in
physics: Factors influencing conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29,
17– 34.
Brown, D.E. (1993). Refocusing core intuitions: A concretizing role for analogy in conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1273–1290.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cavese, J.A. (1976). An analogue for the cell: Life Processes, Inc. The American Biology
Teacher, 38, 108–109.
Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’
preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1241–1257.
Dagher, Z.B. (1994). Does the use of analogies contribute to conceptual change? Science
Education, 78, 601–614.
Dagher, Z.R. (1995a). Analysis of analogies used by science teachers. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 32, 259–270.
Dagher, Z.R. (1995b). Review of studies on the effectiveness of instructional analogies in
science education. Science Education, 79, 295–312.
Demastes, S.S., Good, R.G., & Peebles, P. (1996). Patterns of conceptual change in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 407–431.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific
knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–12.
Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75, 649–672.
Finley, F.N., Stewart, J., & Yarroch, W.L. (1982). Teachers’ perceptions of important and
difficult science content. Science Education, 66, 531–538.
Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou and A. Ortony
(Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199–241). Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
Gilbert, S.W. (1989). An evaluation of the use of analogy, simile, and metaphor in science
texts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 315–327.
Glynn, S.M. (1991). Explaining science concepts: A Teaching-with-Analogies Model. In
S.M. Glynn, R.H. Yeany, & B.K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science
(pp. 219–240). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glynn, S.M. (1995). Conceptual bridges: Using analogies to explain scientific concepts. The
Science Teacher, 62, 25–27.
Glynn, S.M., & Duit, R. (1995). Learning science meaningfully: Constructing conceptual
models. In S.M. Glynn and R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 3–33). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glynn, S., Duit, R., & Thiele, R. (1995). Teaching with analogies: A strategy for constructing knowledge. In S.M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research
reforming practice (pp. 247–273). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glynn, S.M., & Muth, K.D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1057–1073.
Goetz, E.T., Alexander, P.A., & Ash, M.J. (1992). Educational psychology. New York: Merrill.
Hafner, R., & Stewart, J. (1995). Revising explanatory models to accommodate anomalous
genetic phenomena: Problem solving in the “Context of Discovery.” Science Education, 79,
111–146.
1148
GLYNN AND TAKAHASHI
Harrison, A.G., & Treagust, D.F. (1993). Teaching with analogies: A case study in Grade10 optics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1291–1307.
Helgeson, S.L. (1994). Research on problem solving: Middle school. In D.L. Gabel (Ed.),
Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 248–268). New York: Macmillan.
Hesse, M.B. (1966). Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre
Dame Press.
Hewitt, P.G. (1993). Conceptual physics (3rd ed.). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Hewson, P.W., & Hewson, M.G. (1992). The status of students’ conceptions. In R. Duit,
F. Goldberg, and H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 59–73). Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education.
Hoffman, R.R. (1980). Metaphor in science. In R.P. Honeck & R.R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cognition and figurative language (pp. 393–423). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Holliday, W.G., Yore, L.D., & Alvermann, D.E. (1994). The reading–science learning–writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 877–893.
Iding, M.K. (1997). How analogies foster learning from science texts. Instructional Science,
25, 233–253.
Jensen, M.S., & Finley, F.N. (1996). Changes in students’ understanding of evolution resulting from different curricular and instructional strategies. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 33, 879–900.
Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O’Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking
skills. Orlando, FL: Academic.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lawson, A.E. (1993). The importance of analogy: A prelude to the special issue. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1213–1214.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). Reasoning about structure and function: Children’s conception of gears. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 3–25.
Mayer, R.E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59,
43–64.
Metz, K.E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children’s science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65, 93–127.
Oppenheimer, R. (1956). Analogy in science. American Psychologist, 11, 127–135.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.
Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2,
176–186.
Penner, D.E., Giles, N.D., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1997). Building functional models:
Designing an elbow. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 125–144.
Pressley, M., & McCormick, C. (1995). Cognition, teaching, and assessment. New York:
HarperCollins.
Ryder, J.M., & Redding, R.E. (1993). Integrating cognitive task analysis into instructional
systems development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41, 75–96.
Searleman, A., & Herrmann, D. (1994). Memory from a broader perspective. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Spector, B.S., & Gibson, C.W. (1991). A qualitative study of middle school students’ perceptions of factors facilitating the learning of science: Grounded theory and existing theory.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 467–484.
Strike, K.A., & Posner, G.J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In
ANALOGY-ENHANCED SCIENCE TEXT
1149
R.A. Duschl and R.J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147–176). New York: State University of New York Press.
Thagard, P. (1992). Analogy, explanation, and education. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 29, 537–544.
Thiele, R.B., & Treagust, D.F. (1994). The nature and extent of analogies in secondary
chemistry textbooks. Instructional Science, 22, 61–74.
Thiele, R.B., & Treagust, D.F. (1995). Analogies in chemistry textbooks. International
Journal of Science Education, 17, 783–795.
Thomas, L. (1974). The lives of a cell. New York: Bantam.
Tobin, K., Tippins, D.J., & Gallard, A.J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for
teaching science. In D.L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning
(pp. 45–93). New York: Macmillan.
Venville, G.J., & Treagust, D.F. (1997). Analogies in biology education: A contentious issue. The American Biology Teacher, 59, 282–287.
Vosniadou. S., & Ortony, A. (1989). Similarity and analogical reasoning: A synthesis. In
S. Vosniadou and A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 1–18). Cambridge:
Cambridge Press.
White, B.Y. (1995). The ThinkerTools Project: Computer microworlds as conceptual tools
for facilitating scientific inquiry. In S.M. Glynn and R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the
schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 201–227). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wiggs, C.L., & Perez, R.S. (1988). The use of knowledge acquisition in instructional design. Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 257–274.
Yager, R.E. (1995). Constructivism and the learning of science. In S.M. Glynn and R. Duit
(Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 35–38). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.