Scientific Research in School Volume 3 Issue 1 2021
As simple as making hot dogs: Using analogies to teach limiting and excess reagents in high school chemistry. Cleo Christie-David Barker College Analogies are commonly used to communicate complex, and often abstract, topics in science education. There is limited research into the effect of analogy on how students respond to exam-style questions. This research investigates the potential benefit of using analogy as a teaching model in chemistry with a controlled study involving 34 Year 10 students at a co-educational independent high school in Sydney, Australia. One video used the analogies of hot dogs and burgers, and the other video relied solely upon traditional chemistry examples to explain the concept of limiting and excess reagents. The students were asked exam style questions which required them to recall and explain limiting and excess reagents qualitatively and answer practical questions quantitatively. Although the literature suggested that analogy would have more positive effects, the results failed to enhance this claim. Whilst there were somewhat higher levels of sophistication in responses from the analogy treatment, it was not enough to suggest that analogical reasoning was more beneficial than traditional methods but presents avenues for further research
Literature Review Analogy is an effective tool used in education which involves giving real-life examples to enable students to understand abstract ideas, especially in the sciences. Analogies can be tools of both discovery and the transfer of knowledge as they evoke mental images that are concrete for unsophisticated thinkers (Aubusson, Treagust & Harrison, 2009; Harrison & Treagust, 1993). For example, the recipe of a hot dog from the components of a sausage and bun can become an analogy for the reactants and products in a chemical reaction. Analogies can be valuable tools in conceptual learning by facilitating a cognitive understanding of the abstract to welcome higher-order thinking (Duit, 1991; Richland & Simms, 2015; Sutula & Krajcik, 1988). Successful use of analogy For an analogy to be successful, there must be correspondence between the analogy and the abstract idea involving similar features relating to either “concepts, principles or formulas” (Glynn et al., 1989, p.383). The correspondence is a form of mapping one idea to another with a systematic comparison, either verbally or visually between common and uncommon features (Aberšek, 2016; Aubusson et al., 2009). Through this mapping, analogies allow what is familiar to be used to make the “unfamiliar accessible and
understandable” (Aubusson et al., 2009, p.212; Richland & Simms, 2015). For example, the winds of a bird can be used as an analogy for how the wings of a plane work or the human eye is analogous to how a camera operates. Unsuccessful use of analogy However, analogies can also create misconceptions where there are differing and misleading features between the abstract and target knowledge (Champagne et al., 1985; Dilber & Bahattin, 2008; Thiele & Treagust, 1992), or where students are unfamiliar with the analogy (Gentner & Gentner, 1983; Nagel, 1961). Orgill and
Figure 1: Incorporation of analogy in new knowledge (Source: Thiele & Treagust, 1992)
Science Extension Journal • 127
