Social interaction and the use of analogy: An analysis of preservice teachers' talk during physics inquiry lessons

Abstract

Analogies have been argued to be central in the process of establishing conceptual growth, making overt connections and carryover into an intended cognitive domain, and providing a generative venue for developing conceptual understanding inherent in constructivist learning. However, students' specific uses of analogies for constructing arguments are not well understood. Specifically, the results of preservice teachers' knowledge gains are not widely studied. Although we would hope that engaging preservice science teachers in exemplary lessons would assist them in using and generating analogies more expertly, it is not clear whether or how such curricula would affect their learning or teaching. This study presents an existence proof of how preservice science teachers used analogies embedded in their course materials Physics by Inquiry. This fine-grained analysis of small group discourse revealed three distinct roles of analogies including the development of: (a) cognitive process skills, (b) scientific conceptual understanding, and (c) social contexts for problem solving. Results suggest that preservice teachers tend to overgeneralize the analogies inserted by curriculum materials, map irrelevant features of analogies into collaborative problem solving, and generate personal analogies, which counter scientific concept development. Although the authors agree with the importance of collaborative problem solving and the insertion of analogies for preservice teachers' conceptual development, we believe much more needs to be understood before teachers can be expected to construct and sustain effective learning environments that rely on using analogies expertly. Implications for teacher preparation are also discussed. ß

Preservice elementary teachers' critique of instructional materials for science

“…One factor may be that elementary teachers often do not have the sophisticated understandings of science content their secondary counterparts have (Anderson & Mitchener, 1994). Without deeply understanding the content, they are unlikely to identify representations as either successful or problematic (Yerrick et al, 2003). A second factor may be that instructional representations can be evaluated (see, e.g., McDiarmid, Ball, & Anderson, 1989;Treagust & Harrison, 2000)-but preservice teachers may not recognize that these representations vary in their effectiveness, much less how to evaluate them.…”

“…Fourth, it is difficult for preservice teachers, in particular, to critique curriculum materials effectively (see, e.g., Lynch, 1997). For example, preservice teachers may not understand the analogies that are used in curriculum materials to represent scientific ideas (Yerrick et al, 2003) and thus they may have trouble critiquing the representations effectively. Fifth, teacher educators lack models of instructional approaches for engaging preservice teachers in critique and adaptation of curriculum materials.…”

Beginning teachers moving toward effective elementary science teaching

“…Furthermore, although many criteria exist along which teachers might critique existing curriculum materials (e.g., the AAAS Project 2061 criteria for evaluating textbooks; see Kesidou & Roseman, 2002), beginning elementary teachers may struggle to select appropriate criteria to use, or they may simply focus on whether they "like" or "don't like" the materials (Davis, 2006b). Furthermore, they may struggle with critiquing curriculum materials effectively (Lynch, 1997;Schwarz, 2009, this issue;Schwarz et al, 2008;Yerrick, Doster, Nugent, Parke, & Crawley, 2003).…”

Collaborative and self-generated analogies in science education

“…Yerrick, Doster, Nugent, Parke and Crawley (2003) studied preservice physics teachers working with analogies for electric circuits in small-group exercises within a guided-inquiry approach. While strategically inserted teacher-generated analogies effectively led the students to ascertain their own beliefs, when the analogies were adapted in small-group discussions, they tended to promote misconceptions and to be over-generalised in contexts where they did not apply.…”