Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

As we have illustrated in this chapter, on balance analogies are a friend to teachers and students alike but as we emphasise, analogies can be double-edged swords. In order that analogies are used as an effective tool in a science teacher’s repertoire, knowledge about their pedagogical function is essential. In its most elementary form, science teachers’ knowledge about analogies should include: the suitability of the analog to the target for the student audience and the extent of teacher-directed or student-generated mapping needed to understand the target concept; an understanding that an analogy does not provide learners with all facets of the target concept and that multiple analogies can better achieve this goal; an appreciation that not all learners are comfortable with multiple analogies because the epistemological orientation of some is to expect a single explanation for a phenomenon. Additional understanding of how analogies can be optimally used in class can be derived from the history of scientific discovery and from accounts of the ways experienced science teachers use analogies. We do not wish to claim that analogies used in science classrooms will necessarily improve both science teaching and learning. Still, research has compellingly demonstrated that, when used effectively, analogies are a valuable pedagogical tool in teachers’ repertoires and this enhancement of practice is our aim in writing this chapter.

The paper’s examples — the wheels analogy, Dana’s story, Neil’s teaching and Ian’s interview show that analogies can interest students provided the stories are contextually, intellectually and socially familiar. Three recommendations seem pertinent: First, teachers need a rich and varied set of analogies that stimulate their own and their students’ creative imaginations. When teachers and students coconstruct analogical explanations using the students’ shared experiences, effective learning often results. Second, teachers need a systematic strategy for presenting analogies so that the analogy’s familiarity and interest is assured; the shared attributes are mapped in a way that enhances relational knowledge; and a means exists to check that the students realise when and where the analogy breaks down. This strategy is available in the FAR guide (see pp. 20–21). Third, it is important that we study which analogies interest students, why students are interested in these analogies, and which concepts are best developed using these analogies. This chapter also has shown that expert and creative teachers carefully plan their analogies and understand the limits of their favourite analogies. Yet research shows that many analogies are ad hoc or reflex-like reactions to student disinterest and lack of understanding. Learning will not be of the desired type or depth while ad hoc analogies are retained. I recommend that only those tried analogies that can be presented in an interesting way be used to explain abstract and difficult science concepts.

The evidence that analogical role play provides a motivating, interesting and enjoyable way to sustain student engagement with ideas may be reason enough to include the strategy in the teaching repertoire. But analogical role play provides much more than affective gains. Role plays can be used to portray ideas and promote discussion. As the role plays evolve in response to this discussion they provide a powerful way to encourage students to think scientifically through analogical reasoning. The dialogue used and developed in the process of producing and analysing the role plays contributes to a successful learning experience. It not only helps to enhance understanding of the concepts being studied at the time but fosters learning during discussions in subsequent lessons. It is tempting to avoid analogical role play, particularly where the students construct their own model, because the model must by its very nature be incorrect. Yet in classes such as Steve’s, the thinking and learning which occur are difficult to deny.