Teaching Chemistry with Analogies around the ... - ACS Publications

Downloaded via UNIV OF SYDNEY on July 16, 2018 at 10:33:34 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

Chapter 9

Teaching Chemistry with Analogies around the World: Views of Teachers from Four Countries S. Akaygun,*,1 C. Brown,2 F. O. Karatas,3 S. Supasorn,4 and Z. Yaseen5 1Department

of Mathematics and Science Education, Bogazici University, Istanbul 34342, Turkey 2Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado 80639, United States 3Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon 61080, Turkey 4Department of Chemistry, Ubon Ratchathani University, Ubon Ratchathani 34190, Thailand 5School of Education, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo 2007, Australia *E-mail: [email protected].

This multinational study explores the experience of teachers regarding the use of analogies in high school chemistry classes. The opinions of one hundred and forty (N=140) high school teachers from the countries of Australia, Thailand, the United States of America, and Turkey were collected with a questionnaire developed by the researchers. In the questionnaire, several themes were included: frequency and purpose of using analogies, concepts for which analogies are employed, favorite analogies, features of analogies considered, materials accompanied with analogies, and evaluation of analogies. These themes conveyed the similarities and differences among the countries. Analogies were widely used for unobservable chemical phenomena by teachers from all the countries. The teachers pay attention to students’ attributes and experiences while selecting the right analogy in teaching.

© 2018 American Chemical Society Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Introduction Analogies make our language more colorful, more interesting, more familiar. In the everyday life we talk about an easy task as “piece of cake” in the USA and (just like Australia or “çocuk oyuncağı (kid’s toy)” in Turkey, or “ eating banana)” in Thailand. Analogies have had an important role in chemistry education and the use of analogies have been explored from high school to college level chemistry. Studies have shown that analogies have proven to be powerful tools in generating insight and understanding of abstract concepts (1). Analogies presented to students in a school setting promote flexible, conceptual learning, and problem solving skills (2). This might be very helpful while teaching chemistry as chemical phenomena can be seen in three different representations namely macroscopic, symbolic, and particulate that are related to each other (3). The macroscopic level is the observable chemical phenomena including changes in temperature, colour, or products (forming or disappearing). The particle level of representation is utilized to explain macroscopic phenomena based on the particulate nature of matter. The symbolic level is required to communicate between macroscopic and particle nature of chemical phenomena via pictorial, algebraic, physical and computational forms including chemical equations, graphs, mechanisms, analogies, and model kits (3). In chemistry education the meaning of analogy is extended to include ‘the process of identifying similarities between two concepts … [and] abstract ideas in familiar terms (4).’ Used in this way, analogies clarify, illustrate, and construct meaning by making the unfamiliar (what one is trying to explain) familiar in terms of ideas that are analogically similar. Analogies create relations between previously familiar knowledge and experiences and new contexts and problems (5); they open new perspectives for students from teachers’ perspectives (6). Analogies help students understand complex, abstract concepts by creating opportunities for them to compare real world similarities with new or abstract concepts (7). Students are then able to develop a more scientific understanding of concepts, especially abstract concepts, because analogies provide new material that can be easily integrated to students’ existing knowledge (8). Why do teachers need to use analogy in science and chemistry teaching? When used appropriately, analogies are especially effective for explaining relations between scientific ideas and ‘ideas that students find familiar (9)’ and for illustrating and modelling abstract or difficult scientific concepts such as: atomic bonds and the conservation of matter (8–10); fundamental chemical concepts such as solubility (11); the use of complex instrumental techniques such as nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (9); molecular structure, chemical reactivity and equilibria and stereochemistry (9). Let’s consider following analogy about solubility: A beaker filled with magnets and another filled with marbles. When you pour one into the other and stir them, these two do not mix. Attraction forces among the magnets do not allow marbles spread into (dissolved) the magnets. These forces do not let the magnets separate from each other and scatter into the marbles (12). This analogy might be helpful to explain and for students to understand why hexane and water do not mix. 130 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

An analogy has two attributes: the base analog and target analog (4). The familiar concept (which is used to facilitate the explanation) is called the base analog, and the unfamiliar concept (which is to be explained) is called the target analog. Target and base analogs have certain features that can be mapped as being similar and dissimilar, both types needed to be identified. Mapping is described as ‘the intellectual process of identifying attributes of the analogy and the analysis of the match and mismatch of each attribute (13).’ According to Niebert and Gropengiesser (2014), the mapping process requires reflection on highlighting and hiding (14). The thinking and discussions that occur during mapping are crucial to understanding related science concepts (15). It should not be assumed that students are able to map the shared attributes of the target and base analogs without their teacher’s support (9). Aubusson et al. (2009) claim that while using analogies effective learning may occur when the teacher assists students to map the features of the target and base analogs (4). The teacher needs to discuss and explain the similarities and differences in the target-base analog relationship. The explanation and discussion of analogies are more valuable in learning than the analogy itself. Even though an analogy may sometimes not represent a phenomenon accurately, the explanation of its match and mismatch properties helps create understanding of that phenomenon (16, 17). Niebert & Gropengiesser (2014) showed that although students and scientists may use the same analogies, they map them differently (14). Analogical research in science education has shown that when students interpret analogies on their own they often generate misconceptions about the scientific concepts (5). For example, Vosniadou and Schommer (1988) showed that even though five- and seven-year-olds were able to find the similarities between target and base analogs, students are less likely to develop misunderstandings when they work with their teacher during the mapping of the similarities and differences of the analogies (18). The use of student-generated ideas is crucial in analogical mapping. Justi and Gilbert (2003) suggest that teachers should discuss and guide rather than show and tell so that students can construct their own analogies (19). When students discuss their student-constructed analogies, they are more likely to be able to map their own analogies than the analogies provided by their teacher (5, 20). When students create an analogy, they use their own familiar concepts (base analog) to represent the unfamiliar concept that is to be explained (target analog). Selfgenerated analogies can deepen their understanding of science because once they create an analogy, it is easier for meaningful learning to arise (15, 16, 21). Even though students find it difficult to build their own analogies, when they do so, they can map it easily (5). Aubusson and Fogwill (2006) stated that while students’ own independent analogies may lead to misunderstandings, when a teacher works with students to co-design and ensure careful mapping, sound concept development is a consistent outcome (15). Explanations and discussions about matching and mismatching properties make analogies powerful learning tools. Students generating their own analogies provides an opportunity for the teacher to intervene to highlight when clear understanding exists. Careful questioning deepens understanding because 131 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

students can build on and modify an existing cognitive framework. Aubusson et al. (2009) argue that using analogies along with the mapping of the match and mismatch of each attribute can contribute to effective science teaching and learning (4). In summary, analogies are powerful tools in chemistry education. Analogies help teachers understand and express the concept being taught and to guide students in their process of understanding. When analogies are used effectively, they are valuable in teaching because they provide an easy way of explaining abstract concepts using familiar concepts. Students need to understand and map the analogies, while being aware that analogies are approximations of reality (9). Learning chemistry using familiar or contextualized analogies is often effective to enhance student conceptual changes (22) since analogies provide students a chance to understand even intangible concepts by aiding students to connect between the base analogue and target concepts (23). When implementing such analogy in chemistry, teachers should consider key features for effective analogy instruction including (1) ensuring the analogy is familiar to the students, (2) mapping as many shared attributes as possible, and (3) identifying where the analogy deviates from the target phenomenon (24). Even though vast numbers of studies have aimed to investigate analogies for teaching and learning took place, a comparison of how and why chemistry teachers from different cultures and regions administrate analogies in their class might contribute to teaching of chemistry in general and research in analogy in particular. Research Purpose This research involves an exploration of analogies as instructional tools in high school chemistry classes by teachers from four different countries. The aim of this chapter is to identify how chemistry teachers from different countries employ analogies in their classroom. The study also seeks to emphasize similarities and differences in the prevalence of analogies usage in the high school chemistry class in several countries. Our chapter will provide an international perspective regarding the usage of analogies by chemistry teachers. The usage of analogies at the international level, across multiple countries, has not been reported in the literature. This study addresses a gap in the knowledge about how the teachers use analogies in their chemistry classes in countries as Australia, Thailand, the USA, and Turkey.

Methodology The study investigated the use of analogies in high school chemistry classes in the countries mentioned as framed by the following questions: • •

What are the views and experiences of chemistry teachers regarding the role of analogies in teaching high school chemistry? Which attributes or features of analogies do chemistry teachers take into consideration while selecting them? 132

Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

•

What are the similarities and differences in the use of analogies by high school chemistry teachers in different countries?

Phenomenography was chosen as the theoretical framework to guide this research, since the goal was to identify various ways high school chemistry teachers perceive the use and relevancy of analogies in addressing different chemistry concepts. According to Marton (1986), phenomenography “is a research method adapted to mapping the qualitatively different ways in which people experience, conceptualize, perceive, and understand various aspects of and phenomena in the world around them (25).” This approach is suitable for description of differences and similarities in participants’ opinions. Participants The number of participants in each country were similar. Thirty-five teachers each in Australia and the USA; 34 teachers in Thailand, and 36 teachers in Turkey were recruited for a total of 140 chemistry teachers. Participation in the study was voluntary and only the chemistry teachers were invited. All ethical considerations common to research with human subjects were obtained in the development of this study, prior to all phases including data collection and analysis protocols. The teachers in the USA were recruited using the web site of National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). The teachers in the other countries were contacted through e-mail. As shown in Figure 1, 59% of the participants from Turkey, Australia, the USA and Thailand, were female. When we report the gender based on the sample in each county, Turkey represents 70% female and 30% male, similarly Australia represents 63% female, and 37% male. When we look at the USA and Thailand participants, almost half were female and half were male chemistry teachers.

Figure 1. Gender distribution of the participants. (see color insert) In terms of the distribution of the highest degree in education (Figure 2), overall, 44% of all chemistry teachers in all four countries reported they have a terminal bachelor’s degree while 46% of all teachers have a terminal master’s degree, and only 8% of them have a PhD degree. More than half of Turkey (61%) and Australia participants (51%) have only a bachelor’s degree. However the 133 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

majority of teachers in Thailand (65%) and USA (57%) have a masters degree. The USA sample had the highest percentage have a PhD teachers (14%) followed by Australia (11%) and Turkey (6%) in our sample. There were no chemistry teachers having a PhD in the sample of Thailand.

Figure 2. The distribution of the highest degree in education. (see color insert) Participants in our sample from all four countries indicated that about one third of them (29%) had 1-5 years of experience in teaching chemistry followed by 6-10 years of experience (24%), 11-15 years of experience (16%), 16-20 years of experience (14%) and more than 20 years of experience (17%), as seen in Figure 3. A similar trend in distribution of experience in teaching chemistry is seen in each country. Participants in our samples from Australia indicated that they teach chemistry courses for just one grade, while some participants from the USA, Turkey, and Thailand teach chemistry courses for more than one grade. The majority of teachers from Australia (71%) teach chemistry courses for 12th grade students, the majority of teachers from Thailand (71%) and from the USA (54%) teach chemistry courses for 10th and 11th grade students. Teachers from Turkey are approximately evenly distributed by grade 27%, 18%, 21%, 29% from 9th to 12th respectively. Regarding the teachers in the sample of Thailand, 32%, 38% and 30% of them teach chemistry courses for one grade, two grades, and more than two grade students, respectively. All of the chemistry teachers in Thailand have to teach chemistry courses for high school classes (10th - 12th grade). Diversity in sample selection provided a greater range of opinions and different perspectives of the phenomenon. The number of participants was adequate to provide rich descriptions about various ways of experiencing analogies. The data became “saturated,” as no new codes and categories were revealed in the analysis. Data saturation is reached when further data do not reveal new codes and information.

134 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Figure 3. Experience in teaching. (see color insert) Data Collection and Analysis The opinions of the chemistry teachers were evaluated through a qualitative methodology in the form of a questionnaire. A 15-item questionnaire, Questionnaire for Using Analogies in Teaching Chemistry (QUATC) was developed by the researchers through discussions about the content and the type of questions regarding the use of analogies in a high school chemistry class based on the research questions. Some of the questions are two-tiered; first the frequency of a particular construct, and then an explanation of the choice were asked. Regarding the validation of the QUATC, a professor of science education, with experience in the area of analogies in science education, was consulted. Based on his suggestions, the QUATC questionnaire was revised and approved by all the researchers. In this chapter, the results of seven of the questions are reported. Results from the remaining questions will be presented in a future manuscript. The QUATC was administered online by using two different software tools: Qualtrics and Google Form. Invitations to participate were sent by e-mail to the teachers. The e-mail informed the teachers about the project. The participants were advised to use the link provided to access the QUATC. The questionnaire opened with an informed consent statement and a request for acknowledgement of that statement. The first part of the questionnaire included questions requesting some demographic information, then the questions that pertains to the use of analogies in the classroom were followed. The data collected with the questionnaire were analyzed question wise and separately by country. Data analysis began by collecting all teachers’ responses for each question in the questionnaire to organize the data. The responses for each question were analyzed by identifying qualitatively distinct categories as ultimate goal, but the analysis process began with open coding, as a form of inductive data analysis (26). The first level of analysis involved examining the participants’ responses by looking for similarities and differences among them. The data were then subjected to a second, deeper analysis that generated categories that were more specific, in accord with the principle of the hermeneutic circle (27). At the beginning and late aspects of the category development stage, each responsible 135 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

researcher presented his/her results to another colleague. Then, individuals of these paired colleagues checked the coding and categories to verify for internal consistency. After these paired researchers agreed on the codes and categories, they shared these codebooks for the specific question with other team members to analyze their data deductively. During this deductive analysis process each researcher remained alert for new codes and trends in the data. The codes emerged from data are represented below in Table 1.

Table 1. Example of coding rubric Theme

Category and Subcategory

Code example

Purpose for using/evaluating

Student-based Learning Motivational Teacher-based

Understanding Engaging Makes instruction easier

Purpose for not using/evaluating

Student-based Teacher-based Concept-based Curriculum-based

May cause misconception Lack of teacher’s knowledge Not applicable to all concepts Intense curriculum content

Topics of analogies

Unobservable Phenomena Particulate & symbolic level Symbolic level Observable Phenomena Macroscopic, symbolic, and particulate levels General

Attributes of analogies

Materials accompanied with the analogies

Structure of atom Names of elements States of matter Abstract concepts (no specifics)

Student-based Everyday life experiences Background/ prior knowledge Teacher-based Knowledge (Content) Instruction (Pedagogy) Concept/Content based Abstract Objectives

To make it concrete Applicable to objectives

Physical manipulatives Visualization Models Activity Sheet Role-play Techniques

Play dough Videos Atomic models Hand outs Student act-outs Brainstorming

Familiar Relevant to students age Simplification Makes instruction easier


Results and Discussion In this section we present the results and discussion on selected questions regarding the use of analogies in class, topics frequently employed to be presented with the help of analogies, and attributes/features of analogies considered while selecting an analogy. Also the teachers were asked to write down his/her three favorite analogies. The teachers were also consulted on their opinion on the potential of analogies to cause misunderstandings/misconceptions. It was also interesting to learn about sources the teachers are using to find their analogies, other materials (activity sheets, models, visuals, etc.) accompanying analogies, and if the teachers are evaluating the analogies they are using for their effectiveness of learning. The findings for each question are represented below.

Question 1a. How often do you use analogies? Please explain why. Chemistry teachers in all four countries prefer using analogies at a quite frequent extent. When the chemistry teachers were asked how often they use analogies when teaching, it was observed that in all four countries the majority (76 - 88%) of the teachers indicated that they used analogies in a frequency ranging from sometimes to often (Figure 4). In all four countries, none of the teachers said they never use analogies. Very few (3-5) teachers, in all countries, said that they rarely or almost always used analogies.

Figure 4. Frequency of the usage of analogies. (see color insert)


Question 1b. Please explain why. Another commonality observed in all four countries was the purpose of using analogies. The majority of them (82-94%) said that the main purpose of using analogies was student learning that includes understanding and retention of concepts. The highest rate (94%) in this category was given by the chemistry teachers in Australia, yet the teachers in the other countries responded with a rate in this category of over 80%. The teachers in all four countries reported that they rarely used analogies for other purposes such as improving student motivation, being suitable for a particular concept, or makes the instruction easier. For instance, one chemistry teacher from Turkey says “I have been using analogies to make the abstract concepts concrete so that they become easier for my students to understand”. Question 2a. With which topics do you especially employ analogies? The majority (55-64%) of the responses were about the concepts related to unobservable phenomena which include particulate and symbolic representations such as atomic structure, electron configuration, and ionic charge. The teachers also indicated that they use analogies for the concepts of unobservable phenomena which are represented at the symbolic level such as symbols of elements on the periodic table. A relatively lower percentages (15-31%) of the responses were about the analogies used for the concepts depicting observable phenomena such as chemical reactions. This might be because these concepts include concrete phenomena, thus easier for students to understand without using analogies. Question 2b. Please explain why you employ more analogies with these topics. The majority of the teachers (59-83%) across the four countries, indicated that they used analogies for student- based reasons. Few of them (13-32%) said that they used analogies because the concept or the content is appropriate for an analogy. An Australian teacher, for example, explains this as: “Atomic structure and displacement reactions are things that they [students] cannot see on a molecular level, but you can provide a relatable description of what is happening. The students can use this to build a foundation for other concepts.” Question 3. Which attributes or features of analogies do you take into consideration while selecting them? The majority of teachers in Thailand (53%) focused on concept-based attributes, in comparison with the majority of teachers in the USA (92%), in Australia (75), that focused on student-based attributes. In Turkey, teachers considered both student-based (52%) and concept-based (33%) attributes. The 138 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

situation in Thailand may have arisen from the fact that the teachers were seriously concerned about the number of concepts in textbooks, so they tried to manage their class to meet all concept objectives. They mentioned that there are a lot of concepts to cover in each course within a limitation of time caused their class to be less student-based. The teachers in the USA and in Australia were more concerned with students’ ability to relate and connect the analogy to previous knowledge or everyday life experience. Among the teachers in the USA sample, 22% mentioned the importance of the analogy to be culturally relevant and relevant to the student’s age/background in the process of selecting the use of an analogy. Similarly to the USA sample, teachers in Australia sample 41% mentioned the relevance of the analogy to the class group and the requirements of students while selecting the analogies. Simplicity of the analogy was also an important consideration to use the analogy in classroom.

Question 4a. Write down your three favorite analogies. The majority (74%) of the teachers gave examples of analogies involving an unobservable phenomena at the particulate and symbolic levels, while some (12%) of them gave examples of an observable phenomena involving macroscopic, particulate, and symbolic levels. It can be inferred that the teachers from all four countries implemented analogies mostly in the topics that cannot be observed or directly perceived rather than topics that can be observed at the macroscopic level. Their favorite analogies at the unobservable phenomena were mostly in particulate and symbolic levels (70%). These analogies were in the topics of atomic structure and electronic configuration, molecular shapes, and chemical bonding. Teachers’ favorite analogies at the observable phenomena involving all three levels of chemistry representation were mostly in the topics of rate of chemical reaction and factors influencing rate, chemical equilibrium and changes, states of matters, and kinetic particle theory. It was also found that most teachers in Turkey (33%) and Australia (43%) focused more on particulate and symbolic levels related to structure (i.e., toys, fruits, and science models), while most teachers in the USA (48%) and Thailand (22%) focused more on particulate and symbolic levels related to both structure and process (i.e., bicycling, cooking, and role playing). Some examples of their analogies included analogizing catalyst to scissors, income of married couples to concentration calculation, and a darts game to reliability, validity, precision, and accuracy. They also provided role playing examples for the kinetic particle model and change of states of matter using students as particles and dancing students to represent solubility. The following excerpts are examples of the analogies presented by some of the teachers: Australia - “The ethane molecule is like two fidget spinner stuck to each other in the middle. It you replace one of the H with the Cl (Physically stick a coloured magnet button) it is still the same molecule. The point want to make is, single bonds rotate, just like this fidget spinner.” 139 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Australia - “Idea of displacement using dog sitting in chair in front of fire. Student comes in and throws dog out of chair onto floor. Chair is the solution student more reactive metal and dog the less reactive metal.” Turkey - “Gaining or losing electrons is similar to gaining or losing weight because the size changes.” “Polarity of a bond resembles to tug of war game with one side is stronger the other side.” USA - “Changing a dozen eggs to twelve is analogous to changing moles to atoms.” Thailand - “Ionic bond is like two friends who have money 1 Baht (A) and 7 Baht (B). A has to give his 1 Baht to B so that they can buy a candy valued 8 Baht.”

Question 4b. Please explain why these are your favorite ones. The majority of the teachers’ (71%) responses were related to student-based experiences and backgrounds attributes of the analogy. Only a few of them rated their favorite analogies based on teacher-based attributes (16%) and concepts (13%). It can be inferred that most of the teachers from all four countries were concerned about their students’ understanding. It was also found that the teachers in Turkey and in Australia rather selected favorite analogies based on students’ background or prior knowledge than students’ everyday life, while the teachers in the USA and in Thailand selected favorite analogies in reverse order. This is aligned with their responses for question 4a, in which they were asked about their three favorite analogies. The student-based factors that these teachers often considered for choosing their favorite analogies included understanding, visualization, and contextualization. Examples of their teacher-based factors were about using analogies as formative assessment and for simplification, while their concept-based factors were about transforming abstract concepts to more concrete, and similarity of analogy and its’ corresponding concepts.

Question 5a. Do you think that analogies may cause misunderstandings/ misconceptions? Teachers in all four countries seem to be aware that certain analogies make sense to them but may not be clear and illuminating for the students and there is potential for creating misconceptions (alternative conceptions), as seen in Figure 5. Some of the teachers did not consider this as a possibility.


Figure 5. Opinions regarding an analogy’s potential to create misconceptions. (see color insert) A Turkish chemistry teacher emphasized how an analogy may lead to misunderstanding if teachers are not careful. “For example, structure of an atom is likened to solar system and planets symbolize electrons. But, when we consider that planets have different sizes, this might lead to a misconception that size of the electrons is different. Thus, while presenting this analogy, we must warn students about it.” The similar idea is expressed by another teacher in the USA sample: “All analogies may have the potential to cause misconceptions because an analogy in itself is a simplified model of a complex concept. That is why the selection of analogies must be carefully used to minimize the possibility of misunderstandings.”

Question 5b. If yes, please explain by giving example for these types of analogies. Analogies that could create misunderstandings are mainly student-based due to the students’ lack of ability to connect the elements of an analogy. Students may take the analogy as the truth rather than a vehicle for understanding, there is a tendency to consider the analogy literally, e.g., atomic structure and orbiting planets (from a teacher in Turkey), escalators for equilibrium reactions (from a teacher in the USA), ladder for electronic energy level (from a teacher in Thailand).


A teacher from the USA sample pointed out this very clearly: “After discovering that many students thought the sun was alive because they had earlier studied the life cycle of a star, I decided to pay more attention to the meaning of the metaphors, models and analogies I am using.” Another reason thought to have the potential to create misunderstandings expressed by the teachers from all four samples, especially Australia, is content-based; some textbooks’ diagrams may not fully explain the idea, some are too general and simplified or not matching features of analogy and target concept. The Australian teachers thought that they need to keep questioning to determine whether the students’ thoughts are aligned with what the teachers are thinking. They thought that an analogy is useless without questioning it. In Thai sample, a teacher explained that their students sometimes get confused about the size and total surface area of the same quantity (mole) of reactants, in which they thought that the bigger object, the larger surface area.

Question 6a. Do you use any other materials (activity sheets, models, visuals, etc.) accompanying analogies? In most of the countries with exception of Turkey (for which 67% of the teachers are never or rarely) a high percentage of the teachers in the study are using alongside analogies other materials (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Frequency of using additional materials used with analogies. (see color insert)


Question 6b. Please explain why and how if you use other materials. Among the additional materials, the visualizations are the most used ones by all the teacher across the countries. The physical manipulatives (e.g. play dough), models, and techniques (e.g. brainstorming) are also mentioned by a few of the teachers. For example, an Australian teacher in the sample expressed why and how s/he uses other materials as: “I use worksheets, diagrams, examples etc. I feel that it is important for students to be able to access this information at a later date and remember the discussion and the activity. If they remember the analogy and not the content then the analogy is ineffective. It is important for students to have something to return, that will help them remember the correlations.” A Thai teacher likes to use animation and video in conjunction with analogy as s/he noted that “Some chemistry topics are intangible and difficult (i.e., chemical equilibrium) so I often use analogy together with corresponding animation to help my students visualize and understand the concept.”

Question 7a. Do you evaluate whether your analogy is effective for any aspects of learning? An interesting observation regarding this questions is that the majority of the teachers (82%) in three of the countries will evaluate their analogies; however, 59% of the Thailand participants never or rarely evaluate the effectiveness of the analogy regarding any aspects of learning (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Frequency of evaluation of effectiveness of analogies. (see color insert)


Question 7b. Please explain how. Teachers usually employed informal formative assessment methods to evaluate effectiveness of the analogy including students’ nodding, students’ usage of analogy while performing exercises, students’ explanation of the phenomenon, etc. These are considered indicators to show whether the analogy employed enables the student to understand the topic or the concept. Among the reasons that the teachers check the effect of analogies on learning are generally student-based and especially emphasize student understanding. The Australian participants also mentioned students’ retention as another important reason for evaluating the analogy. Similarly a Thai teacher explained that s/he evaluates the effectiveness of the analogy based on students’ responses in class. A few teachers also addressed what they do if the analogy does not work. A Thai teacher, for instance, stated that “if it doesn’t work, we have to modify to get the more suitable analogy for our students.”

Conclusions This study explored the views of chemistry teachers from four countries regarding the use of analogies in teaching chemistry at the high school level. Despite the differences in language, culture, and educational systems among these four countries, there were found many similarities in how chemistry teachers view and employ analogies in their classes. The main purpose for using analogies in chemistry classes was to enhance student understanding since some of the concepts can be very challenging for students due to their abstract or particulate nature. However, the veteran teachers with more than 5 years of experience were fully aware about the potential of this analogies to create misconception. It is required to explain and elaborate the ideas that analogies represent about scientific phenomena, the reasoning underpinning the analogy and the ways in which the ideas in analogies are being illustrated in order to prevent any misunderstandings that could lead further to misconceptions. There was a difference in the teachers considerations for choosing analogies in their teaching. In Australia and the USA, the teachers tend to choose analogies considering more the student-based attributes, in comparison with Thailand that the attributes of the chosen analogies are more concept-based, and in Turkey the teachers consider attributes from both of the categories. In addition, the type of materials teachers use along with the analogies varied among the countries due to teacher’s preferences. In all three countries, except Turkey, the majority of teachers preferred to use additional materials such as worksheets, visualizations, or techniques. In Thailand and Turkey, teachers said they mostly used visualizations and techniques such as brainstorming whereas in the other countries they said they used physical manipulatives or worksheets. This might be because teachers in Thailand and Turkey use mostly teacher-centered instruction, where they enhance the instruction with visual techniques, whereas the teachers in the other countries may have preferred more student-centered approach in their teaching. 144 Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

Another interesting finding pertains to the assessment of analogies and their effectiveness in teaching. While the teachers in Australia evaluate the analogies to check their effectiveness for student understanding, student performance or retention, in other countries some of the teachers rarely evaluate the analogies regarding any aspects of learning. As teachers or researchers despite the country in which we live, we all speak the common language of chemistry. Teaching with analogies was confirmed to be a flexible and useful pedagogical tool, even though it can be a double edged sword. It is important for teachers to carefully select the analogies by considering their attributes and to evaluate them in order to prevent potential misconceptions. To this end, it is important for chemical education researchers to explore the perspectives of chemistry teachers in using and evaluating analogies considering their potential benefits, as well as risks like causing misconceptions.

References 1. 2.

3. 4.

5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14. 15.

Newby, T. J.; Stepich, D. A. J. Inst. Dev. 1987, 10, 20–26. Aubusson, P.; Harrison, A. G; Ritchie, S. In Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education; Aubusson, P. J.; Harrison, A. G.; Ritchie, S., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; pp 1−9. Treagust, D.; Chittleborough, G.; Mamiala, T. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2003, 25, 1353–1368. Aubusson, P.; Treagust, D. F.; Harrison, A. In The World of Science Education: Handbook of Research in Australasia; Ritchie, S., Ed.; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2009; Vol. 2, pp 199−216. Harrison, A. G.; Treagust, D. F. In Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education; Aubusson, P. J.; Harrison, A. G.; Ritchie, S., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; pp 11−24. Venville, G. J.; Treagust, D. F. Instructional Sci. 1996, 24, 295–320. Treagust, D. F.; Harrison, A. G.; Venville, G. J.; Dagher, Z. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1996, 18, 213–29. Duit, R. Sci. Educ. 1991, 75, 649–72. Coll, R. K. In Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education; Aubusson, P., Harrison, A. G., Ritchie, S.; Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, 2006; pp 65−77. Coll, R.; Treagust, D. F. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2002, 20, 241–67. Taylor, N.; Coll, R. J. Sci. Math. Educ. South East Asia 2002, 25, 25–40. Kjonaas, R. A. An analogy for solubility: Marbles and magnets. J. Chem Educ. 1984, 61, 765. Aubusson, P.; Harrison, A. G. In Metaphor and Analogy in Science education; Aubusson, P. J.; Harrison, A. G.; Ritchie, S., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; pp 1−9. Niebert, K.; Gropengiesser, H. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2014, 36, 207–303. Aubusson, P.; Fogwill, S. In Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education; Aubusson, P. J.; Harrison, A. G.; Ritchie, S., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; pp 93−104. 145

Cox and Schatzberg; International Perspectives on Chemistry Education Research and Practice ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.

16. Fogwill, S. Physics students generating analogies to develop and show understanding-is this quality teaching and learning?, Proceedings of Australasian Science Education Research Association Conference; Fremantle, Australia, July 11−14, 2007. 17. Fogwill, S. Student generated analogies in high school physics, Proceedings of Australasian Science Education Research Association Conference, Canberra, Australia, July 5−8, 2006. 18. Vosniadou, S.; Schommer, M. J. Educ. Psyc. 1988, 80, 524–36. 19. Justi, R. S.; Gilbert, J. K. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2003, 25, 1369–1386. 20. Harrison, A. G.; de Jong, O. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2005, 42, 1135–59. 21. Cosgrove, M. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1995, 17, 295–310. 22. Çalik, M.; Kolomuc, A.; Karagolge, Z. J. Sci. Educ. Tech. 2010, 19, 422–433. 23. Çalik, M.; Ayas, A. Asia-Pacific Forum on Sci. Learn. Teach. 2005, 6, 1–13. 24. Çalik, M.; Ayas, A.; Coll, R. K. Int. J. Sci. Math. 2009, 7, 651–676. 25. Marton, F. J. Thought 1986, 21, 28–49. 26. Patton, M. Q. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed.; Sage Publication: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2002; pp 452−454. 27. Shane, J. W. In Theoretical Frameworks for Research in Chemistry/Science Education; Bodner, G. M.; Orgill, M., Eds.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2007; pp 108−121.


Teaching Chemistry with Analogies around the ... - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents