Understanding needs embodiment: A theory-guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science

Science Education

Volumn 96, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 849-877

  Niebert, Kai ^a   Marsch, Sabine ^b   Treagust, David F ^c  

^a LEIBNIZ UNIVERSITY HANNOVER   (Germany)

^b Freie Schule Anne Sophie   (Germany)

^c CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865064377     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21026     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Adbo, K., & Taber, K. S. (2009). Learners' mental models of the particle nature of matter: A study of 16-year-old Swedish science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 757-786.
2. Alberts, B., Johnson, A., Lewis, J., Raff, M., Roberts, K., & Walter, P. (2008). Molecular biology of the cell. New York: Garland Science.
3. Amin, T. G. (2009). Conceptual metaphor meets conceptual change. Human Development, 52(3), 165-197.
4. Aubusson, P., Harrison, A., & Ritchie, S. (2006). Metaphor and analogy: Serious thought in science education. In P. Aubusson, A. Harrison, & S. Ritchie, (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 1-10). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer
5. Brown, D. E., & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science, 18(4), 237-261.
6. Campbell, N. A., Reece, J. B., Urry, L. A., Cain, M. L., College, M., Ferry, D., et al. (2008). Biology (8th ed.). New York: Pearson Benjamin Cummings.
7. Carey, S. (1992). The origin and evolution of everyday conceptions. In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 89-128). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
8. Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61-82). New York: Routledge.
9. Chi, M., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.
10. Dagher, Z. R. (1995). Analysis of analogies used by science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(3), 259-270.
11. diSessa, A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2-3), 105-225.
12. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649-672.
13. Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., & Kattmann, U. (2005). Towards science education research that is relevant for improving practice: The model of educational reconstruction. In H. Fischer (Ed.), Developing standards in research on science education. The ESERA Summer School 2004 (pp. 1-9). London: Taylor & Francis.
14. Gabel, D. L., & Samuel, K. V. (1986). High school students' ability to solve molarity problems and their analog counterparts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 165-176.
15. Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain's concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 1-26.
16. Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical transfer. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199-242). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
17. Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., & Boronat, C. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 199-253). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
18. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
19. Glynn, S. (2007). The teaching-with-analogies model. Science and Children, 44(8), 52-55.
20. Gropengießer, H. (1997). Schülervorstellungen zum Sehen (Students conceptions on seeing). Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 3(1), 71-87.
21. Gropengießer, H. (2007). Theorie des erfahrungsbasierten Verstehens (The theory of experientialism). In D. Krüger & H. Vogt (Eds.), Theorien in der biologiedidaktischen Forschung (pp. 105-116). Berlin: Springer.
22. Halloun, J. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1056-1065.
23. Harrison, A., & De Jong, O. (2005). Exploring the use of multiple analogical models when teaching and learning chemical equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1135-1159.
24. Harrison, A., & Treagust, D. (2006). Teaching and learning with analogies-friend or foe. In P. Aubusson, A. Harrison, & D. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 11-24). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
25. Holyoak, K. J. (1985). The pragmatics of analogical transfer. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 19, pp. 59-87). Orlando FL: Academic Press.
26. Houghton, J. (2002). Physics of the atmospheres. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
27. Ioannides, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meanings of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2(1), 5-62.
28. IPCC. (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
29. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind-the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
30. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2009). Preaching to the converted? From constructivism to neuroconstructivism. Child Development Perspectives, 3(2), 99-102.
31. Lakoff, G. (1990). Women, fire and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
32. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
33. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
34. Levi, P. (1975). The periodic table. London: Penguin Books.
35. Matthews, M. R. (2000). Constructivism in science and mathematics education. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), National Society for the Study of Education, 99th yearbook (pp. 161-192). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
36. Mayring, P. (2002). Qualitative content analysis-research instrument or mode of interpretation? In M. Kiegelmann (Ed.), The role of the researcher in qualitative psychology (pp. 139-148). Tübingen, Germany: UTB.
37. Niebert, K. (2010). Den Klimawandel verstehen. Eine Didaktische Rekonstruktion der globalen Erwärmung [Understanding climate change. An educational reconstruction of global warming]. Oldenburg, Germany: Didaktisches Zentrum Oldenburg.
38. 2 itself, it's the imbalance!" Conceptual reconstruction of the carbon cycle in global warming. In A. Yarden & G. S. Carvalho (Eds.), A selection of papers presented at the VIIIth Conference of European Researchers in Didactics of Biology (ERIDOB). (pp. 339-351). Braga, Portugal: University Press.
39. 2 causes a hole in the atmosphere." Using laypeople's conceptions as a starting point to communicate climate change. In W. Leal (Ed.), The economic, social and political elements of climate change (pp. 603-622). Berlin: Springer
40. Niebert, K., Riemeier, T., & Gropengießer, H. (in press). The hidden hand that shapes conceptual understanding. Choosing effective representations for teaching cell division and climate change. In C.-Y. Tsui & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in biological education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
41. Nuñéz, R., Edwards, L., & Matos, J. (1999). Embodied cognition as grounding for situatedness and context in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39(1-3), 45-65.
42. Reiner, M., Slotta, J., Chi, M., & Resnick, L. (2000). Naive physics reasoning: A commitment to substance-based conceptions. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 1-34.
43. Riemeier, T., & Gropengießer, H. (2007). On the roots of difficulties in learning about cell division: Process-based analysis of students' conceptual development in teaching experiments. International Journal of Science Education, 30(7), 923-939.
44. Riemeier, T., & Gropengießer, H. (2008). On the Roots of Difficulties in learning about cell division: Process-based analysis of students' conceptual development in teaching experiments. International Journal of Science Education, 30(7), 923-939.
45. Ritchie, S. M. (1994). Metaphor as a tool for constructivist science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 16(3), 293-303.
46. Ritchie, S. M., Bellocchi, A., Poltl, H., & Wearmouth, M. (2006). Metaphors and analogies in transition. In P. Aubusson, A. Harrison, & S. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 143-153). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
47. Rohrer, T. (2001). Understanding through the body: fMRI and ERP investigations into the neurophysiology of cognitive semantics. Paper presented at the 7th International Cognitive Linguistics Association, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA.
48. Rohrer, T. (2005). Image schemata in the brain. In B. Hampe & J. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Images schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 165-196). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
49. Schmitt, R. (2005). Systematic metaphor analysis as a method of qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 10(2), 358-394.
50. Thanhäuser, A., Böhle, A., Schneider, B., Reiling, N., Mattern, T., Ernst, M., et al. (1995). The induction of bacillus-Calmette-Guerin-activated killer cells requires the presence of monocytes and T-helper type-1 cells. Cancer Immunol, 40, 103-108.
51. Treagust, D., & Chittleborough, G. (2001). Chemistry: A matter of understanding representations. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Subject-specific instructional methods and activities (Vol. 8, pp. 239-267). Paris: Elsevier.
52. Treagust, D., Harrison, A., & Venville, G. (1996). Using an analogical teaching approach to engender conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 18(2), 213-229.
53. Treagust, D., Harrison, A., & Venville, G. J. (1998). Teaching science effectively with analogies: An approach for preservice and inservice teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(2), 85-101.
54. Tsui, C. Y., & Treagust, D. (2007). Understanding genetics: Analysis of secondary students' conceptual status. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 205-235.
55. Van Driel, J. H., De Vos, W., Verloop, N., & Dekkers, H. (1998). Developing secondary students' conceptions of chemical reactions: The introduction of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 379-392.
56. Venville, G. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional interpretive framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9), 1031-1056.
57. von Glaserfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, onstruction of knowledge and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121-140.
58. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1987). Theories of knowledge restructuring in development. Review of Educational Research, 57(1), 51-67.
59. Vosniadou, S., Vamavakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3-34). New York: Erlbaum.
60. Wilbers, J., & Duit, R. (2001). On the micro-structure of analogical reasoning: The case of understanding chaotic systems. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, M. Komorek, A. Kross, & P. Reiska (Eds.), Research in science education-past, present, and future (pp. 205-210). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
61. Wiser, M., & Amin, T. (2001). "Is heat hot?"-Inducing conceptual change by integrating everyday and scientific perspectives on thermal phenomena. Learning and Instruction, 11(4-5), 331-355.
62. Zook, K. B. (1991). Effect of analogical processes on learning and misrepresentation. Educational Psychology Review, 3(1), 41-72.