The place of analogies in science education

Cambridge Journal of Education

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 233-247

  Heywood, Dave ^a  

^a MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 8744299725     PISSN: 0305764X     EISSN: 14693577     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03057640220147577     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. BlGGS, J., 1989. Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Education Research and Development, 8: 7–25.
2. BlACK, P.J., and LUCAS, A.M., eds. 1993. Children's Informal Ideas in Science, London: Routledge.
3. BROWN, T., 1997. Mathematics Education and Language. Interpreting hermeneutics and post structuralism, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
4. CLEMENT, J., 1993. Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10): 1241–1257.
5. CLEMENT, J., 1998. Expert novice similarities and instruction using analogies. International Journal of Science Education, 20(10): 1271–1286.
6. CLEMENT, J., 2000. Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9): 1041–1053.
7. COSGROVE, M., 1995. A study in science-in-the-making as students generate an analogy for electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 17(3): 295–310.
8. DART, B.C., BOULTON LEWIS, G.M., BROWNLEE, J.M., and McCRINDLE, A.R., 1998. Changes in knowledge of learning and teaching through journal writing. Research Papers in Education, 13: 291–318.
9. DFEE. 1998. Initial Teacher Training National Curriculum for primary Science, annex E of DfEE circular 4/98, London: Department for Education and Employment.
10. DREISTADT, R., 1968. An analysis of the use of analogies and metaphors in science. Journal of Psychology, 68: 97–116.
11. DRIVER, R., 1994. “ Children's ideas about physical processes: electricity ”. In Making Sense of Secondary Science, Edited by: DRIVER, R., SQUIRES, A., RUSHWORTH, P., and WOOD-ROBINSON, V., London: Routledge.
12. EASLEY, J., 1990. “ Stressing dialogical skill ”. In Science Education: a minds-on-approach for the elementary years, Edited by: DUCKWORTH, E., EASLEY, J., and HAWKINS, D., 61–93. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. EGER, M., 1992. Hermeneutics and science education: an introduction. Science and Education, 1: 337–348.
14. EGER, M., 1993a. Hermeneutics as an approach to science: Part 1. Science and Education, 2: 1–29.
15. EGER, M., 1993b. Hermeneutics as an approach to science: Part 2. Science and Education, 2: 303–328.
16. FENSHAM, P.J., 2001. “ Science content as problematic--issues for research ”. In Research in Science Education-fast, present, and future, Edited by: BEHRENDT, H., DAHNCKE, H., Durr, R., GRABER, W., KOMOREK, M., KROSS, A., and REISKE, P., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
17. FEYNMAN, R.P., 1965. The Character of Physical Law, London: Penguin.
18. FREDERKSEN, J.R., WHTTE, B.Y., and GUTTWILL, J., 1999. Dynamic mental models in learning science: the importance of constructing the derivational linkages among models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7): 806–836.
19. GAIlAGHER, S., 1992. Hermeneutics and Education, Albany: State University of New York Press.
20. GENTNER, D., and GENTNER, D.R., 1983. “ Flowing waters or teeming crowds: mental models of electricity ”. In Mental Models, Edited by: GENTNER, D., and STEVENS, A., 61–93. Erlbaum: Englewood Cliffs.
21. GILBERT, J.K., BOULTER, C., and RUTHERFORD, M., 1998. Models in explanations, Part 1: horses for courses?. International Journal of Science Education, 20(1): 83–97.
22. GOODING, D., 1989. “ Magnetic curves and the magnetic field ”. In The Uses of Experiment. Studies in the natural sciences, Edited by: GODDING, D., PINCH, T., and SCHAFFER, S., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. GREGORY, B., 1988. Inventing Reality. Physics as language, New York, NY: Wiley.
24. HEYWOOD, D.S., 2000. “ Interpretation and meaning in science education: hermeneutic perspectives on language in learning and teaching science ”. Manchester Metropolitan University. unpublished PhD thesis
25. HEYWOOD, D., and PARKER, J., 1997. Confronting the analogy: primary teachers exploring the usefulness of analogies in the teaching and learning of electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 19(8): 869–885.
26. HEYWOOD, D., and PARKER, J., 2001. Describing the cognitive landscape in learning and teaching about forces. International Journal of Science Education, in press
27. JOHNSON, P., Children's understanding of substances, Part 1: Recognising chemical change. draft paper delivered at ESRA Conference. Germany: University of Kiel.
28. KELLY, G.J., and CHEN, C., 1998. Students' reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7): 849–871.
29. KUHN, T.S., 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
30. LEE, Y., and TAW, N., 2001. Explorations in promoting conceptual change in electrical concepts via ontological category shift. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2): 111–149.
31. METZ, K., 1991. Development of explanation: incremental and fundamental changes in children's physics knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28: 785–798.
32. OSBORNE, J., BLACK, P., SMITH, M., and MEADOWS, J., 1991. Science Processes and Concept Exploration Project: research report: electricity, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
33. OSBORNE, R., and FREYBERG, P., 1985. Learning in Science. The implications of children's science, Auckland: Heinemann.
34. PARKER, J., and HEYWOOD, D., 1998. The earth and beyond: developing primary teachers' understanding of basic astronomical events. International Journal of Science Education, 20(5): 503–520.
35. PARKER, J., and HEYWOOD, D., 2000. Exploring the relationship between subject knowledge and pedagogic content knowledge in primary teachers' learning about forces. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1): 89–111.
36. PFUNDT, H., and DUTT, R., 1984. Bibliography: Students' Alternative Frameworks and Science Education, 4th edn, Kiel, Germany: IPN.
37. POPPER, K.R., 1963. Conjectures and Refutations, London: Routledge.
38. REINER, M., and GILBERT, J., 2000. Epistemological resources for thought experimentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5): 489–506.
39. SHIPSTONE, M., 1984. A study of children's understanding of electricity in simple D.C. circuits. European Journal of Science Education, 6: 185–195.
40. SOLOMON, J., 1986. Children's explanations. Oxford Review of Education, 12: 41–51.
41. SUMMERS, M., KRUGER, C., and MANT, J., 1998. Teaching electricity effectively in the primary school: a case study. International Journal of Science Education, 20(2): 153–172.
42. TASKER, R., and OSBORNE, R., 1985. “ Science teaching and science learning ”. In Learning in Science, Edited by: OSBORNE, R., and FREYBERG, P., Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
43. TAO, P., and GUNSTONE, R.F., 2000. The process of conceptual change in forces and motion during computer supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science and Technology, 36(7): 859–882.
44. TIBERGHIEN, A., 1985. “ Some features of children's ideas and their implications for teaching ”. In Children's Ideas in Science, Edited by: DRIVER, R., GUESNE, E., and TIBERGHIEN, A., 1–9. 193–201. Buckingham: Open University Press.
45. VAN DRIEL, J.H., VERLOOP, N., and DE Vos, W., 1998. Developing science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6): 673–695.
46. VOSNIADOU, S., 2001. “ Conceptual change research and the teaching of science ”. In Research in Science Education-fast, present, and future, Edited by: BEHRENDT, H., DAHNCKE, H., DUTT, R., GRABER, W., KOMOREK, M., KROSS, A., and REBKE, P., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
47. WlLBERS, J., and Durr, R., 2001. “ On the micro-structure of analogical reasoning: the case of understanding chaotic systems ”. In Research in Science Education--past, present, and future, Edited by: BEHRENDT, H., DAHNCKE, H., Durr, R., GRABER, W., KOMOREK, M., KROSS, A., and REISKE, P., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
48. WOLPERT, L., 1992. The Unnatural Nature of Science, London: Faber & Faber.
49. WONG, D.E., 1993. Understanding the generative capacity as analogies as a tool for explanation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10): 1259–1272.
50. WOODRUFF, E., and MEYER, K., 1997. Explanation from intra- and inter-group discourse: students building knowledge in the science classroom. Research in Science Education, 27: 25–39.