Student-generated analogies: Another way of knowing?

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 1-22

  Pittman, Kim M ^a  

^a AURORA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039696785     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199901)36:1<1::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-2     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Bateson, D., Erickson, G., Gaskell, J., & Wideen, M. (1991). Science in British Columbia. British Columbia: Ministry of Education.
2. Brown, D., & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science, 18, 237-261.
3. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Cosgrove, M. (1991). A teaching sequence on electric current. In Learning in science: The implications of children's science. Auckland: Heinemann.
5. Driver, R., & Bell, B. (1986). Students' thinking and the learning of science: A constructivist view. School Science Review, 67, 443-456.
6. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 30, 1241-1257.
7. Fennema, E., & Sherman, L. (1977). Sex-related differences in mathematics, achievement, spatial visualization, & sociocultural factors. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 51-71.
8. Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199-234). London: Cambridge University Press.
9. Glynn, S. (1989). The teaching with analogies (TWA) model: Explaining concepts in expository text. In K.D. Muth (Ed.), Children's comprehension of text: Research into practice (pp. 185-204). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Glynn, S.M. (1991). Explaining science concepts: A teaching-with-analogies model. In S.M. Glynn, R.H. Yearny, & B.K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 219-240). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Gorman, T.P., White, J., Brook, G., Maclure, M., & Kispal, A. (1988). Language performance in schools: Review of APU language monitoring 1979-1983. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
12. Hesse, M. (1966). Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
13. IEA. (1988). Science achievement in 17 countries: A preliminary report. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
14. Kahle, J.B., & Danzl-Tauer, L. (1991). The underutilized majority: The participation of women in science. In S.K. Majumdar, L.M. Rosenfeld, P.A. Rubba, E.W. Miller, & R.F. Schalz (Eds.), Science education in the United States: Issues, crisis, and priorities. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Academy of Science Press.
15. Kahle, J.B., & Lakes, M.K. (1983). The myth of equality in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 131-140.
16. Kaufmann, D.R., Patel, V.L., & Magder, S.A. (1996). The explanatory role of spontaneously generated analogies in reasoning about physiological concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 369-386.
17. Levin, T., Stobar, N., & Libman, Z. (1987). "Girls" understanding of science: A problem of cognitive or affective readiness. In J. Daniels & J.B. Kahle (Eds.), Contributions to the Fourth GASAT Conference (Vol. II) (pp. 104-112). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
18. Marzano, R.J., Pikering, D., & McTighe, J. (1994). Assessing student outcomes. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
19. Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in text validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18,5-11.
20. Mullis, I.V.S., & Jenkins, L.B. (1988). The science report card: Elements of risk and recovery. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
21. Murname, R.J., & Raizen, S.A. (Eds.) (1988). Improving indicators for the quality of science and mathematics education in Grades K-12. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
22. Murphy, P. (1991). Gender and practical work. In B. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical work in science (pp. 112-122). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
23. Murphy, P. (1996). Assessment practices and gender in science. In L. Parker, L. Rennie, & B. Fraser (Eds.), Gender, science and mathematics: Shortening the shadow (pp. 105-117). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
24. NAEP. (1978). Science achievement in schools: A summary of results from the 1976-1977 national assessment of science. Washington, DC: Education Commission of the States.
25. Prentice-Hall Science. (1994). Heredity (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
26. Raizen, S.A., Baron, J.G., Champagne, A.B., Haertel, E., Mullis, I.N.V., & Oakes, J. (1989). Assessment in elementary school science education. Washington, DC: National Center for Improving Science Education.
27. Randall, G.J. (1987). Gender differences in pupil-teacher interactions in workshops and laboratories. In G. Weiner & M. Arnot (Eds.), Gender under scrutiny. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
28. Roth, K.J. (1990). Developing meaningful conceptual understanding in science. In B.F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 139-176). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Rumelhart, D.E., & Norman, D.A. (1981). Analogical processes in learning. In J.R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 335-359). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Thiele, R.B., & Treagust, D.F. (1991). Using analogies in secondary chemistry teaching. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 37, 10-14.
31. Tracy, D. (1987). Toys, spatial ability, and science and mathematics achievement: Are they related? Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 17, 115-138.
32. Treagust, D.F. (1993). The evolution of an approach for using analogies in teaching and learning science. Research in Science Education, 23, 293-301.
33. Treagust, D.F., & Harrison, A.G. (1993). Teaching with analogies: A case study in grade-10 optics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1291-1307.
34. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45-69.
35. Vosniadou, S. (1987). Children and metaphors. Child Development, 58, 870-885.
36. Wilder, G.Z., & Powell, K. (1989). Sex differences in test performance: A survey of the literature (College Board Rep. No. 88-1). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
37. Wittrock, M.C., & Alesandrini, K. (1990). Generation of summaries and analogies and analytic and holistic abilities. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 489-502.
38. Wolf, D., Bixby, J., Glenn, J., III, & Gardner, H. (1991). To use their minds well: Investigating new forms of student assessment. In G. Grant (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 31-74). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
39. Wong, E.D. (1993a). Self-generated analogies as a tool for constructing and evaluating explanations of scientific phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 367-380.
40. Wong, E.D. (1993b). Understanding the generative capacity of analogies as a tool for explanation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1259-1272.
41. Zeitoun, H.H. (1984). Teaching scientific analogies: A proposed model. Research in Science and Technological Education, 2, 107-125.