The effect of analogy-based teaching on students' achievement and students' views about analogies

Concept learning and teaching is important in science education. Concept learning is the point of the other learning process (Ülgen, 2001). Therefore, individual-based approach is required to teaching concepts (Köksal, 2006). Concepts are categories of stimuli that have certain features in common. Gagne (1985) divided concepts into two classifications: concrete concept and abstract concept. Concrete concepts are associated with tangible things in everyday life, things that can be seen and touched. Chair, bird and ball are examples of concrete concepts. Each of these examples is a thing that can occur in a wide variety of forms, but the words "chair," "bird" and "ball" evoke common understanding. Such easily remembered examples of concrete concepts are prototypes, the "clearest cases, the best example" (Rosch & Mervis, 1975).

Abstract concepts are words for things that cannot be experienced by any of the five senses. For this reason they cannot be tasted, seen, smelled, heard or touched. Some examples are: love, freedom, crime, happiness, sadness, anger, work, hope and help. It is difficult to define these concepts. Furthermore, some concrete concepts too small to be seen are difficult to teach in education.

There are various approaches to visualization in education. For example, students might use analogies (Gabel, 2003; Yerrick, Doster, Nugent, Parke, & Crawely, 2003), computer animations (Bukova-Güzel & Cantürk-Günhan, 2010; Çelik, 2007;Daşdemir, 2006;Daşdemir & Doymuş, 2012; Elmstrom Klenk, 2011; Gil & Paiva, 2006; Gökhan, 2011; Iskander & Curtis, 2005; Kauffman, 2003; Powell, Aeby & Carpenter-Aeby, 2003; Santos, 2009), illustration (Hibbing, & Rankin-Erickson, 2003), slowmotions (Ekici & Ekici, 2011; Hoban, Loughran &Nielsen, 2011; McKnight, Hoban & Nielsen, 2011; Vratulis, Clarke, Hoban & Erickson, 2011) and concept maps (Andersen-Inman & Diston, 1999; Anderson-Inman & Horney, 1996; Anderson-Inman & Zeitz, 1993; Aykanat, Doğru & Kalender, 2005).

Notwithstanding each of these approaches is established from different perspectives, each shares the goal of helping students create visuals using prior experience and knowledge to build conceptual understanding. Visualization, without attention to approach, has been shown to be effective as a metacognitive strategy for students (Cifuentes & Hsieh, 2003).

Analogies are a powerful learning tool, but they must be used with care. Simons (1984) cautioned against the use of analogies in cases where the learners could not comprehend the subject matter involved. The use of analogies in these instances could increase the encoding time and thereby slow the learning process. Analogies can also lead to improper over generalization. However, as long as the instruction carefully identifies the limits of the relationship and the points at which the analogy breaks down, an analogy can be a strong and effective strategy component (Reigeluth & Stein, 1983; 360). Analogies help to establish relations between familiar information and new information (Schustack & Anderson, 1979). Analogies describe new concepts or ideas by linking them to "familiar ones that are outside of the content area of immediate interest" (Reigeluth & Stein, 1983; 360). This linking provides a level of comfort to those who are faced with new information. The use of analogies is "a means of establishing conceptual bridges between the known and the unknown" (Nichter & Nichter, 1986; 63). Just as we use bridges to travel from one place to another, we use analogies as "bridges" from known to unknown information.

The role and importance of analogy in learning has been extensively researched in science education. The main purpose of the using analogy as a strategy deployed in teaching is that of developing an understanding of abstract phenomena from concrete reference. While such an objective is desirable, it is ground on the assumption that there is an agreed commentary of the particular phenomena under review to which all subscribe (Heywood, 2002). Analogy has a very specific and somewhat limited role to scientists and they are fully aware of this. Scientists are aware that analogies contain irrelevant attributes and therefore all have weaknesses (Nottis, 1999). Despite these weaknesses, analogy is freely used to explain quantum physics as in Hawking's A Brief History of Time. According to Dreistadt (1968) noted scientists such as Poincaire, Newton, Maxwell, Bhor, Einstein, and Darwin made extensive use of analogy in their work.

When analogies are not linked to prior knowledge they are not as effective in facilitating conceptual understanding (Galloway, 1990; Gilbert, 1989). When limitations of the analogies or disanalogous features of source and target (known and unknown concepts) are not explicitly stated, learners may be misled (Thagard, 1992). Sometimes this can lead to analogy induced misconceptions (Reigeluth & Stein, 1983; Zook & Maier, 1994).

Studies have examined or described the effectiveness of instructional analogies used in the classroom. Although they have primarily used qualitative research methodologies, relying heavily on observation and interview (Thiele & Treagust, 1994), some other assessments have been used as well. For example, Gilbert (1989) used multiple choice achievement tests to detect whether the addition of analogies resulted in greater retention of important concepts, attitude scales, and a short answer test. In the short answer test, the number of analogies used in responses was counted.

Radford (1989) used content and evaluation tests to examine concept recall and achievement after using written analogies, while Bean, Searles, Singer, and Cowen (1990) used matching and short essay tests to assess conceptual understanding after using pictorial analogies.

Because of the potentially beneficial effects of analogies to explain difficult-to-understand concepts, serious consideration of ways to maximize their instructional effectiveness needs to be considered seriously. In addition, a variety of assessments (both qualitative and quantitative) need to be considered as evaluation tools to determine whether analogies increase, decrease, or do not affect conceptual understanding, and under what conditions or not.

One of the most common areas investigated by analogy researchers is the goal of using the analogy: the target concept. Pittman (1999) stated that analogies have weaknesses and that communicators need to exercise care when developing and using analogies to express ideas related to any topic. Poor analogies can often make an otherwise successful science lesson completely ineffective. Analogies allow learners to use prior knowledge to assimilate and eventually accommodate new knowledge.

In some of the studies carried out at the effect of analogies, (Akamca, 2008; Çalık & Kaya, 2012; Heywood, 2002; Kılıç & Umdu-Topsakal, 2011; Ören et.al, 2011) indicated that the use of the analogy technique has positive influence on learning. Further in some of the studies which were carried out about the students’ views (Demir, Önen & Şahin, 2011; Ekici, Ekici & Aydın, 2007; Ören et.all, 2010), it was concluded that the students determined the analogies enjoyable, useful and interesting. It was seen that in some of the studies which were carried out using by teachers (Akpnar, Yıldırım, & Dönder, 2012; Güler &Yağbasan, 2008; Hulshof & Verloop, 2002; Oliva, Azcarate & Navarrete, 2007), the use of analogy in courses was preferred. However some of the students had conceptual mistakes in this study. In the studies which were carried out relating to many courses (Aykutlu & Şen, 2011; Aykutlu & Şen, 2012; Bilgin & Geban, 2001; Dilber; 2006; Kılıç, 2007), it was concluded that analogies were effective in eliminating conceptual mistakes and in the retention of knowledge. In the studies which were carried out by means of using analogy in courses (Akar, 2007; Akyüz, 2007; Cerit, 2008; Günel, Kabataş-Memiş & Büyükkasap, 2009;Kayhan, 2009; Kılıç & Umdu-Topsakal, 2011; Lancor, 2012; Sagirli, 2002; Saygılı, 2008; Şahin, Akbulut & Cepni, 2012), it was concluded that the use of analogical models positively affected the achievement of the students.

The purpose of this study is to determine the students’ views about analogy which was formed by students. For this purpose, the analogies were formed by students after the teaching concepts.