1st supervisor: Dr. W. R. van Joolingen 2nd supervisor: Dr. P. Wilhelm University of Twente Faculty of behavioral science Enschede – June, 2007 Foreword

A final thought on analogy and analogy mapping

This experiment has shown is that it is difficult to tap into the mind of the learner and to see just how a certain topic should be tailored and taught. But complexity comes with the territory, and this may be interpreted as ‘support’ for the high-level perception stance on analogy: It seems that you cannot accurately model analogy making without taking into consideration all or most of the factors that influence how an analogy is arrived at in the first place. It is perhaps for this reason that this experiment was unable to deliver on the potential promise of analogy mapping as a procedure for cognitive support: Perhaps an analogy should not be ´forced´ onto someone. It may be that for understanding complex analogies of reality, students need more coaching and explanation in a way that caters to low-level perceptual processes and previous knowledge of the students, as would likely be suggested by HLP advocates.

Some students may fail to see an analogy, and some may perceive one that is not actually there (Stavy & Tirosh, 1993). This suggests that an analogy used for an educational purpose should be completely understood by the student, or it may lead to misconception.

All this is not to say that analogy mapping as proposed here is invaluable. Rather, it means that this experiment may be best repeated, for instance, with an analogy of which the target domain is completely unknown to the student and the source domain is completely known. Students might benefit from being allowed more time to get acquainted with the process of analogy mapping and/or being allowed more time for assimilation of, replacement of, or conflict with conceptual schema’s. This process of accretion and tuning is thought to be an important factor in achieving conceptual change (Pearsal, Skipper & Mintzes, 1996). It is possible that the current experiment simply was too ambitious in aiming to test the promise of analogy mapping as a cognitive support procedure, as well as wanting it to be effective in teaching something as complex as evolution.

Analogy mapping for understanding very complex topics is perhaps more meaningful in a more carefully designed approach to achieving conceptual change. A good method may be to employ the pedagogy of collaborative conceptual change, including interviews, discussions, conflict, and a provision of many illustrative examples. It is likely that having students and teachers discuss their ideas in groups will reveal many of the alternative conceptions that can exist, as well as their correct alternatives. A teacher may have to tailor his teaching strategy somewhat ´on the fly´, and make sure that learning tasks fit well within the framework provided by the selected strategy (Scott, Asoko, & Driver, 1991).

REFERENCES
Anderson, D.L., Fisher, K.M., & Norman, G.J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the

conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of research in science teaching, 39(10), 952-978.

Bishop, B.A. & Anderson, C.W. (1986). Evolution by teaching natural selection: A

teaching module. Occasional paper 91. Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Bishop, B.A. & Anderson, C.W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 415-427.
Bizzo, N. M. V. (1994). From down house landlord to Brazilian high school students:

What has happened to evolutionary knowledge on the way? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 537-556.

Brumby, M. N. (1984). Misconceptions about the concept of natural selection by medical

biology students. Science Education, 68(4), 493-503.

Chalmers, D. J., French, R. M., & Hofstadter, D. R. (1992). High-level perception,

representation, and analogy: A critique of artificial intelligence methodology. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 4, 185--211.

Chan, C. (2001). Peer collaboration and discourse patterns in learning from incompatible

information. Instructional Science, 29, 443–479.

Chan, C. Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C. (1997.) Knowledge Building as a Mediator of Conflict

in Conceptual Change. Cognition and instruction, 15(1), 1-40.

Chaiklin, S., & Roth, C. (1986). Commonalities in novice physical-science problem

solving. Paper presented at NSF working conference on Physics learning, Bank street college.

Clayton T. Morrison & Eric Dietrich. (1995). Structure-Mapping vs. High-level Perception: the

mistaken fight over the explanation of analogy. In the Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 1995), 678-682.

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.

Clement‌, C.A., Gentner‌, D. (1991). Systematicity as a selection constraint in analogical

mapping. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, (15)1, 89-132.

Davis, J. (2001). Conceptual Change. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning,

teaching, and technology. Retrieved February 20, 2007, from

http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/conceptualchange.htm.
Dawkins, R. (1983). “Universal Darwinism.” In: Hull, David Lee; and Ruse, Michael

(eds), The Philosophy of Biology 15-35. Oxford: Oxford University Press [First published in: Bendall, D. S. (ed.), 1998. Evolution from Molecules to Man 403-25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press].

Dawkins, R., (1996). The Blind Watchmaker. London UK: W.W. Norton & Company.
De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer

simulations of conceptual domains. Review of educational research, (68)2, 179-201.

Desai, R., (1997). Structure-Mapping vs. High-level Perception: Why the Fight is Not Mistaken,

in Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Stanford, CA.

Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science

Education, 75, 649-672.

Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K., & Gentner, D. (1989). The Structure-Mapping engine: algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1-63. Fisher, K.M. & Lipson, J.I. (1986). Twenty questions about student errors. Journal of research in science teaching, (30)9,

783-803.
Forbus, K.D., Gentner, D., Markman, A.B., & Ferguson, R.W. (1998). Analogy just looks like

high level perception: why a domain general approach to analogical mapping is right.

Journal of experimental and theoretical artificial intelligence, (10), 231-257.
Foxwell, H.J., & Menascé, D.A. (2004). MARVIN: A web-based system for

representing, retrieving, and visualizing analogies. Internet and web information systems, 7, 385-419.

Greene, E. D. (1990). The logic of university students' misunderstanding of natural

selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(9), 875-885.

Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive

Science, 7, 155-170.
Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Oltony (Eds.),

Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199-241). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Gentner, D., Brem, S., Ferguson, R.W., Markman, A.B., Levidow, B.D., Wolff, P., & Forbus,

K.D. (1997). Analogical reasoning and conceptual change: A case study of Johannes Kepler.The journal of the learning sciences, 6(1), 3-40.

Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology,

(12)3, 306-355.
Glynn, S.M. (1989). The teaching with analogies (T.W.A.) model: explaining concepts in

expository text. In K.D. Muth (Ed.), Children’s comprehension of narrative and expository text: research into practice. (99-129).

Glynn, S.M., & Takahashi, T. (1998) Learning from analogy-enhanced science text.

Journal of research in science teaching, 30(10), 1129-1149.

Halford, G. S. (1993). Children's understanding. The development of mental models. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Harrison, A.G. & Treagust , D.F. (1993). Teaching with analogies: A case study in grade

-10 optics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1291-1307.

Hofstadter, D. R. (2001). Epilogue: Analogy as the core of cognition. In D. Gentner,K. J.

Holyoak,& B.N.Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 499–538). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Holland, J.H., Holyoak, K.J., Nisbett, R.E. and Thagard, P.R. (1986). Induction:

Processes of inference, learning and discovery, Computational Models of Cognition and Perception, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. R. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction.

Cognitive Science, 13, 295-355.
Holyoak K.J. & Thagard, P. (1997). The analogical mind. American Psychologist. 52(1)

35-44.

Jonassen, D.H. (2006). On the Role of Concepts in Learning and Instructional Design.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(2), 177.
Kokinov, B., & French, R. M. (2002). Computational models of analogy-making. In L.

Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp. 113–118). London: Macmillan.

Kurtz, K.J., Miao, C., & Gentner, D. (2001). Learning by analogical bootstrapping.

Journal of the learning sciences, 10(4), 417-446.
Lawson, A.E. (1993).The importance of Analogy: A prelude to the special issue. Journal

of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1213-1214.

Lawson, I.L. & Lawson, A.E. (1993). Neural principles of memory and a neural theory of

analogical insight. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1327 – 1349.
Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological

Review, 100, 254-278.

Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American

psychologist, 25, 431-467.

Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution and inheritance.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Paris, N.A, & Glynn, S.M. (2004). Elaborate analogies in science text: Tools for

enhancing preservice teachers’ knowledge and attitudes. Contemporary educational psychology, (29)(3), 230-247.