Exploring the Use of Conceptual Metaphors in Solving Problems on Entropy

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 70-120

  Jeppsson, Fredrik ^a   Haglund, Jesper ^a   Amin, Tamer G ^b   Strömdahl, Helge ^a  

^a LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b LEBANESE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (Lebanon)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876153458     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2012.691926     Document Type: Article

References (107)

1. Al-Zahrani, A. 2008. Darwin's metaphors revisited: Conceptual metaphors, conceptual blends, and idealized cognitive models in the theory of evolution. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(1): 50-82.
2. Amin, T. G. 2009. Conceptual metaphor meets conceptual change. Human Development, 52(3): 165-197.
3. Amin, T. G. 2012. "Researching scientific modeling: Language, the missing artifact". In Developing methods in psychology, Edited by: Abbey, E. and Surgan, S. 141-182. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
4. Amin, T. G., Jeppsson, F., Haglund, J. and Strömdahl, H. in press. Arrow of time: Metaphorical construals of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. Science Education,
5. Aubusson, P. J., Harrison, A. G. and Richie, S. M. 2006. Metaphor and analogy in science education, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
6. Baierlein, R. 1994. Entropy and the second law: A pedagogical alternative. American Journal of Physics, 62: 15-26.
7. Bhaskar, R. and Simon, H. 1977. Problem solving in semantically rich domains: An example from engineering thermodynamics. Cognitive Science, 1(2): 193-215.
8. Bowley, R. and Sánchez, M. 1999. Introductory statistical mechanics, 2nd, Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
9. Brookes, D. 2006. The role of language in learning physics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New Brunswick: The State University of New Jersey.
10. Brookes, D. and Etkina, E. 2007. Using conceptual metaphor and functional grammar to explore how language used in physics affects student learning. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 3(1): 010105
11. Brookes, D. and Etkina, E. 2009. "Force," ontology, and language. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5(1) 010110.
12. Brosseau, C. and Viard, J. 1992. Quelques réflexions sur le concept d'entropie issues d'un enseignement de thermodynamique [Some reflections on the entropy concept from thermodynamics education]. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 10(1): 13-16.
13. Brown, J. S., Collins, A. and Duguid, P. 1989. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1): 32-42.
14. Brown, T. 2003. Making truth: Metaphors in science, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
15. Bruner, J. 1991. The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18(1): 1-21.
16. Budwig, N. 2003. "The role of language in development". In Handbook of developmental psychology, Edited by: Connolly, K. and Valsiner, J. 217-237. London, England: Sage.
17. Chi, M. 1997. Quantifying qualitative analysis of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6: 271-315.
18. Chi, M. 2005. Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14: 161-199.
19. Chi, M., Feltovich, P. J. and Glaser, P. 1981. Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2): 121-152.
20. Chi, M. and Slotta, J. D. 1993. The ontological coherence of intuitive physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3): 249-260.
21. Chi, M., Slotta, J. D. and De Leeuw, N. 1994. From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4(1): 27-43.
22. Christensen, M., Meltzer, D. E. and Ogilvie, C. A. 2009. Student ideas regarding entropy and the second law of thermodynamics in an introductory physics course. American Journal of Physics, 77: 907-917.
23. Clark, A. 1997. Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Clement, J. 2009. Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
25. Clement, J., Brown, D. and Zietsman, A. 1989. Not all preconceptions are misconceptions: Finding 'anchoring conceptions' for grounding instruction on students' intuitions. International Journal of Science Education, 11: 554-565.
26. Cochran, M. J. and Heron, P. R. L. 2006. Development and assessment of research-based tutorials on heat engines and the second law of thermodynamics. American Journal of Physics, 74: 734-741.
27. de Kleer, J. August 1977. Multiple representations of knowledge in a mechanics problem-solver, August, Cambridge, MA: Paper presented at the IJCAI'77 Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
28. diSessa, A. A. 1993a. Responses. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3): 261-280.
29. diSessa, A. A. 1993b. Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3): 105-225.
30. diSessa, A. A. 1998. "What do "just plain folk" know about physics?". In The handbook of education and human development, Edited by: Olson, D. R. and Torrance, N. 709-730. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
31. diSessa, A. A. 2000. "Does the mind know the difference between the physical and social worlds?". In Culture, thought, and development, Edited by: Nucci, L., Saxe, G. and E. Turiel. 141-166. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32. diSessa, A. A. 2002. "Why "conceptual ecology" is a good idea". In Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice, Edited by: Limon, M. and Mason, L. 28-60. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
33. diSessa, A. A., Elby, A. and Hammer, D. 2003. "J's epistemological stance and strategies". In Intentional conceptual change, Edited by: Sinatra, G. and Pintrich, P. 237-290. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. diSessa, A. A. and Sherin, B. L. 1998. What changes in conceptual change?. International Journal of Science Education, 20: 1155-1191.
35. diSessa, A. A. and Wagner, J. 2005. "What coordination has to say about transfer". In Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective, Edited by: Mestre, J. 121-154. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
36. Duit, R. 1991. On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning sciences. Science Education, 75: 649-672.
37. Dunbar, K. 1997. "How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science". In Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes, Edited by: Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M. and Vaid, J. 461-493. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
38. Eccleston, P., Werneke, U., Armon, K., Stephenson, T. and MacFaul, R. 2001. Accounting for overlap? An application of Mezzich's κ statistic to test interrater reliability of interview data on parental accident and emergency attendance. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33: 784-790.
39. Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities, New York, NY: Basic Books.
40. Fernandez-Duque, D. and Johnson, M. 1999. Attention metaphors: How metaphors guide the cognitive psychology of attention. Cognitive Science, 21(1): 83-116.
41. Fernandez-Duque, D. and Johnson, M. 2002. Cause and effect theories of attention: The role of conceptual metaphors. Review of General Psychology, 6(2): 153-165.
42. Fleiss, J. L. and Levin, B. L. 1981. Statistical methods for rates and proportions, 2nd, New York, NY: Wiley.
43. Fuchs, H. U. 1987. Entropy in the teaching of introductory thermodynamics. American Journal of Physics, 55: 215-219.
44. Gibbs, R. 1996. Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition, 61: 309-319.
45. Gibbs, R. 2005. Embodiment and cognitive science, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
46. Gibbs, R., Costa Lima, P. L. and Francozo, E. 2004. Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 36: 1189-1211.
47. Giere, R. 2002. "Models as parts of distributed cognitive systems". In Model based reasoning: Science, technology and values, Edited by: Magnani, L. and Nersessian, N. 227-241. New York, NY: Kluwer.
48. Gupta, A., Hammer, D. and Redish, E. F. 2010. The case for dynamic models of learners' ontologies in physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19: 285-321.
49. Haglund, J. and Jeppsson, F. in press. Using self-generated analogies in teaching of thermodynamics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
50. Hall, R. and Nemirovsky, R. 2012. Introduction to the special issue: Modalities of body engagement in mathematical activity and learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21: 207-215.
51. Halliday, M. and Martin, J. 1993. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power, London, England: Falmer Press.
52. Hammer, D. and Elby, A. 2003. Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12: 53-90.
53. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. and Redish, E. F. 2005. "Resources, framing, and transfer". In Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective, Edited by: Mestre, J. 89-119. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
54. Hammer, D., Gupta, A. and Redish, E. F. 2011. On static and dynamic intuitive ontologies. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20: 163-168.
55. Haser, V. 2005. Metaphor, metonymy and experientialist philosophy: Challenging cognitive semantics, Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
56. Herrmann, F. 2000. The Karlsruhe physics course. European Journal of Physics, 21(1): 49-58.
57. Hutchins, E. 2005. Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of Pragmatics, 37: 1555-1557.
58. Jeppsson, F., Haglund, J. and Strömdahl, H. 2011. Exploiting language in teaching of entropy. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 10(1): 27-35.
59. Johnson, M. 1987. The body in mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
60. Kövecses, Z. 2010. Metaphor: A practical introduction, 2nd, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
61. Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
62. Lakoff, G. 1990. The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas?. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1): 39-74.
63. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
64. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh, New York, NY: Basic Books.
65. Lakoff, G. and Núñez, R. E. 1997. "The metaphorical structure of mathematics: Sketching out cognitive foundations for a mind-based mathematics". In Mathematical reasoning: Analogies, metaphors, and images, Edited by: English, L. D. 21-89. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
66. Lakoff, G. and Núñez, R. E. 2000. Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being, New York, NY: Basic Books.
67. Lambert, F. L. 2002. Disorder-A cracked crutch for supporting entropy discussions. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(2): 187-192.
68. Langacker, R. 1987. Nouns and verbs. Language, 63(1): 53-94.
69. Larkin, J. 1983. "The role of problem representation in physics". In Mental models, Edited by: Stevens, A. L. and Gentner, D. 75-98. New York, NY: Erlbaum.
70. Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P. and Simon, H. A. 1980. Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208: 1335-1342.
71. Levrini, O. and A, diSessa. 2008. How students learn from multiple contexts and definitions: Proper time as a coordination class. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 4(1): 010107
72. McGlone, M. 2007. What is the explanatory value of a conceptual metaphor?. Language & Communication, 27: 109-126.
73. Mezzich, J. E., Kraemer, H. C., Worthington, D. R. L. and Coffman, G. A. 1981. Assessment of agreement among several raters formulating multiple diagnoses. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 16(1): 29-39.
74. Murphy, G. 1996. On metaphoric representation. Cognition, 60(2): 173-204.
75. Nersessian, N. 2008. Creating scientific concepts, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
76. Núñez, R. E. 2012. On the science of embodied cognition in the 2010s: Research questions, appropriate reductionism, and testable explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21: 324-336.
77. Ochs, E., Gonzales, P. and Jacoby, S. 1996. "When I come down I'm in the domain state: Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physics". In Interaction and grammar, Edited by: Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. and Thompson, S. 328-369. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
78. Pragglejaz Group. 2007. MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1): 1-39.
79. Priest, A. G. and Lindsay, R. O. 1992. New light on novice-expert differences in physics problem solving. British Journal of Psychology, 83: 389-405.
80. Redish, E. F. 2004. "A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking". In Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Course CLVI, Edited by: Redish, E. and Vicentini, M. 1-63. Verona, Italy: Italian Physical Society.
81. Roschelle, J. 1992. Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2: 235-276.
82. Roth, W.-M. and Lawless, D. 2002. Scientific investigations, metaphorical gestures, and the emergence of abstract scientific concepts. Learning and Instruction, 12(3): 285-304.
83. Rumelhart, D., Smolensky, P., McClelland, J. and Hinton, G. 1986. "Schemata and sequential thought processes in PDP models". In Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Vol. 2. Psychological and biological models, Edited by: McClelland, J. and Rumelhart, D. 7-57. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
84. Schoultz, J., Säljö, R. and Wyndhamn, J. 2001. Heavenly talk: Discourse, artifacts, and children's understanding of elementary astronomy. Human Development, 44(2-3): 103-118.
85. Semino, E. 2008. Metaphors in discourse, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
86. Sengupta, P. and Wilensky, U. 2009. Learning electricity with NIELS: Thinking with electrons and thinking in levels. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(1): 21-50.
87. Sfard, A. 1991. On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1): 1-36.
88. Sherin, B. 2001. How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction, 19: 479-541.
89. Sherin, B. 2006. Common sense clarified: The role of intuitive knowledge in physics problem solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43: 535-555.
90. Slotta, J. D. 2011. In defense of Chi's ontological incompatibility hypothesis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20: 151-162.
91. Slotta, J. D. and Chi, M. 2006. The impact of ontology training in conceptual change: Helping students understand the challenging topics in science. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2): 261-289.
92. Smith, J., diSessa, A. and Roschelle, J. 1993. Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3: 115-163.
93. Sözbilir, M. and Bennett, J. M. 2007. A study of Turkish chemistry undergraduates' understanding of entropy. Journal of Chemical Education, 84: 1204-1208.
94. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Coulson, R. L. and Anderson, D. K. 1989. "Multiple analogies for complex concepts: Antidotes for analogy-induced misconception in advanced knowledge acquisition". In Similarity and analogical reasoning, Edited by: Vosniadou, S. and Ortony, A. 498-531. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
95. Stevens, R. 2012. The missing bodies of mathematical thinking and learning have been found. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21: 337-346.
96. Strömdahl, H. 2012. On discerning critical elements, relationships and shifts in attaining scientific terms: The challenge of polysemy/homonymy and reference. Science & Education, 21(1): 55-85.
97. Svensson, L., Anderberg, E., Alvegård, C. and Johansson, T. 2009. The use of language in understanding subject matter. Instructional Science, 37(3): 205-225.
98. Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol. 1. Concept structuring systems, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
99. Tomasello, M. 1999. The cultural origins of human cognition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
100. Tweney, R. D. 1992. "Inventing the field: Michael Faraday and the creative engineering of electromagnetic field theory". In Inventive minds: Creativity in technology, Edited by: Perkins, D. and Weber, R. 31-47. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
101. Wilensky, U. and Reisman, K. 2006. Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories-An embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2): 171-209.
102. Williams, R. F. 2012. Image schemas in clock-reading: Latent errors and emerging expertise. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21: 216-246.
103. Wiser, M. and Amin, T. G. 2002. "Computer-based interactions for conceptual change in science". In Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice, Edited by: Limón, M. and Mason, L. 357-387. Dordrecht: The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
104. Wittmann, M. 2002. The object coordination class applied to wave pulses: Analyzing student reasoning in wave physics. International Journal of Science Education, 24(1): 97-118.
105. Yerrick, R. K. and Roth, W.-M. 2005. Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
106. Young, H. D., Freedman, R. A. and Sears, F. W. 2003. Sears and Zemansky's university physics: With modern physics, 11th, San Francisco, CA: Pearson Education.
107. Zumdahl, S. S. 1998. Chemical principles, 3rd, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.