Confronting the analogy: Primary teachers exploring the usefulness of analogies in the teaching and learning of electricity

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 19, Issue 8, 1997, Pages 869-885

  Heywood, D ^a   Parker, J ^a  

^a MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040726784     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0950069970190801     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Black, P. J. and Harlen, W. (1993) How can we specify concepts for primary science? In P. J. Black and A. M. Lucas (eds), Children’s Informal Ideas in Science (London: Routledge), 208-29.
2. Brown, D. E. (1994) Facilitating conceptual change using analogies and explanatory models. International Journal of Science Eduation, 16 (2), 201-14.
3. Clement, J. (1993) Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30 (10), 1241-57.
4. Cosgrove, M. (1995) A study of science-in-the-making as students generate an analogy for electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 17 (3), 295-310.
5. Dreistadt, R. (1968) An analysis of the use of analogies and metaphors in science. Journal of Psychology, 68, 97-116.
6. Driver, R. (1994) Children’s ideas about physical processes: electricity. In R. Driver, A. Squires, P. Rushworth and V. Wood-Robinson (eds), Making Sense of Secondary Science, (London: Routledge), 117-25.
7. Easley, J. (1990) Stressing dialogic skill. In E. Duckworth, J. Easley and D. Hawkins (eds), Science Education: A Minds-on-approach for the Elementary Years (Englewood Cliffs: Erlbaum), 61-93.
8. Feynman, R. P. (1992) The Character of Physical Laui. (London: Penguin Books).
9. Gentner, D and Gentner, D. R. (1983) Flowing waters or teeming crowds: mental models of electricity. In D. Gentner and A. Stevens (eds), Mental Models. (Englewood Cliffs: Erlbaum), 99-131.
10. Grossman, P. L. (1989) Teachers of substance: subject matter knowledge in teaching. In M. C. Reynolds (ed.), Knowledge Base for the Beginning Teacher (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 23-36.
11. Kruger, C., Summers, M. K. and Palacio, D. J. (1990a) A survey of primary school teachers’ conceptions of force and motion. Educational Research, 32 (2), 83-94.
12. Kruger, C., Summers, M. K. and Palacio, D. J. (1990b) An investigation of some English primary school teachers’ understanding of the concepts of force and gravity. British Educational Research Journal, 16 (41), 383-97.
13. McDairmid, G. W. (1989) Why staying one chapter ahead doesn’t really work: subject specific pedagogy. In M. C. Reynolds (ed.), Knowledge Base for the Beginning Teacher (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 193-205.
14. McNamara, D. (1991) Subject knowledge and its application: problems and possibilities for teacher educators. Journal of Education Teaching, 17 (2), 113-28.
15. Osborne, R. and Freyberg, P. (1985) Learning in Science: The Implications of Children’s Science (Auckland: Heineman).
16. Osborne, J., Black, P., Smith, M. and Meadows, J. (1991) Science Processes and Concept Exploration Project: Research Report: Electricity. (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press).
17. Shipstone, M. (1984) A study of children’s understanding of electricity in simple D.C. circuits. European Journal of Science Education, 6, 185-95.
18. Shulman, L. S. (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching, Educational Researcher, 5 (2), 4-14.
19. Tiberghien, A. (1985) Some features of children’s ideas and their implications for teaching. In R. Diver, E. Guesne and A. Tiberghien (eds), Children’s Ideas in Science (Buckingham: Open University Press), 1-9, 193-201.
20. Wong, D. E. (1993) Understanding the generative capacity of analogies as a tool for explanation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30 (10), 1259-72.