Analogy in secondary physics teaching-learning: Teachers’ views and practices in Bangladesh

Analogies and models are excellent inquiry tools. Analogies use familiar, everyday situations that can be used to explain difficult and abstract ideas (Harrison, 2004). An analogy is a process of identifying similarities and dissimilarities between two concepts. The familiar, everyday object or concept is called the analogue and the unfamiliar, scientific idea or concept we are trying to explain is called the target (Harrison, 2004). The strength of an analogy lies less in the number of features the analogue and target domains have in common than in the overlap of relational structure between the two domains (Gentner, 1983). Harrison (2004) asserted that analogies are effective when the everyday object or event is familiar and the students can identify when the analogy is valid and when it breaks down. When the analogies are unfamiliar or the analogy breaks down, alternative conceptions often follow. Harrison (2004) also described the role of shared and unshared attributes when using analogy. Ways in which the analogue is like the target concept are called the analogy’s shared attributes (or positive analogy). Ways in which the analogue seems to be like the target, but is not, are called unshared attributes (or negative analogy).

Context of Bangladesh

In Bangladesh we have three types of schooling systems at national level- General Education, Madrasah Education and Vocational Education System. In all system of secondary level we have three streams- Science group, Humanities group and Business Education group. If we compare the students’ enrollment group wise, we will find that the rate of science group’s enrollment is decreasing year by year (BANBEIS, 2015). Science education in our country is failing to attract students due to lack of proper teaching learning activities, enough instruments and competent teachers.

Analogy is not a formally recognized science teaching learning strategy for science concepts in the curriculum of Bangladesh. Teachers use different analogies unconsciously but do not use it regularly (Tapan, 2010). Sometimes, when students do not understand the concepts and the content demands its use, they try to use analogy particularly as teaching aid but they do not know about the models of using analogies. Teachers do not have any guideline. Uncritical use of analogies may generate misconceptions, and this is the case, especially when unshared attributes are treated as valid, or when learners are unfamiliar with the analogy. In secondary science teaching, teachers’ unconscious and unsystematic use of analogy cause misunderstanding for learners which act as a barrier to promote scientific literacy among students (Halder & Rahman, 2015). The past research only focused on secondary science teaching practice to promote scientific literacy by using analogy (Halder & Rahman, 2015). That study only focused on the enrichment of analogy to explore teachers’ practice. In Bangladesh, research on physics teachers’ views towards using analogy and their practice in teaching through a detailed classification system has not been conducted so far.

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this study is to explore secondary physics teachers’ views and current practice regarding analogy in teaching physics.

The following research questions are going to address the above purpose of the study.

What are the views of secondary teachers’ on the use of analogies in teaching physics?
What type of analogies do secondary physics teachers use in their classroom practice?

Theoretical Framework

This section represents the literature related to basic understanding of using analogy and the classification of analogies. Jonane (2015) focused on several aspects of analogies to understand teachers’ views. In this current study, these aspects of analogies were included in the questionnaire for this study. Teachers’ practice of using analogies were analyzed and divided into five categories according to the classification system developed by Thiele and Treagust (1994) and Curtis and Reigeluth (1984). These categories were used to analyze the types of analogies teachers frequently use during their teaching.

Framework for teachers’ view

Teachers’ views were analyzed and presented as their belief and their understanding on analogy. To ensure teacher’s purposeful use of analogy, teachers need positive belief and a sound understanding on analogy. Teachers’ beliefs about the necessity of analogy in Bangladesh need to be revealed as they are the one who will use this pedagogical approach in their teaching. They need to know the proper manner of using analogy, appropriate time of using and an idea about required competency for both students and teachers.

Analogies help to understand complex and abstract concepts, but analogues need to be familiar to students. It is found in many studies that analogies can promote meaningful understanding of complex scientific concepts during science teaching and learning (Harrison, 1993; Gentner, 1983; Wong, 1993; Friedel, Gabel & Samuel, 1990). However, if the teacher uses an unfamiliar analogue to the learner, development of understanding through use of that particular analogy is constrained (Jonane, 2015).

Exploring prior knowledge and purposeful use of analogies are necessary. From the study of Jonane (2015), it is found that purposeful use of analogy develops students’ ability to apply knowledge to new situations and assist development of transferred skills. According to Treagust and Duit (2012) when teachers use analogies, this creates an increased awareness in the teacher that they also need to take students’ pre-instructional conceptions into consideration when teaching.

Analogies may create misconception among students. At some point, however, every analogy “breaks down” as there are always a number of similarities and dissimilarities between analogue and target. It is precisely at that point when misconception and misdirection can begin (Glynn, 1991). For this reason, Duit and Glynn (1996) have said that analogies are ‘double edged swords’.

Stating both shared and unshared attributes is crucial. For understanding conceptual ideas, explaining the likes and unlike are important. Glynn (1991) and Harrison and Coll (2008) recommended that teachers discuss with their students the everyday aspects of the analogy, the ways in which the familiar instance or event teaches about a scientific concept along with where the analogy breaks down. For understanding conceptual ideas, explaining the likes and unlike are important. Clarifying analogies in this way enriches them and makes them more effective (Duit, Roth, Komorek, & Wilbers, 2001; Glynn, Britton, Semrud-Clikeman & Muth, 1989; Harrison and Treagust, 2006; Iding, 1997).

Using analogy requires students’ competency. Holyoak and Thagard (1995) posit that the very act of forming an analogy requires a kind of mental leap to visualize one thing as if it were another. Treagust and Duit (2012) claimed that if the students lack visual imagery, the value of analogies may be limited. Jonane (2015) claimed that famous analogies in science frequently induce mental leap among students. Cruz-Hastenreiter (2015) emphasized that analogies activate analogical reasoning, organize perception and develop cognitive skills like creativity and decision making. Analogies from life also inspire imagination.

Using analogy require teachers’ competency. Treagust and Duit (2012) claimed that using analogy also requires planned strategy which demands competent teachers. Halder and Rahman (2015) found that teachers don’t know about FAR guide, they do not conclude by summarizing analogy’s outcome and they are not concerned about self-reflection. The study of Gess-Newsome (cited in Glynn, 2008) mentioned that using analogies without knowing the way of presenting it is risky. Most of the studies regarding analogy suggested following a model for teaching with analogies.

Teachers’ views need to be evaluated through these aspects as teachers need competency and a proper understanding on using analogy for using these properly. In Bangladesh, on average about 15% schools and 31% madrasahs have no science laboratory. 13.5% rural and 20.3% urban high schools and 23.1% and 13.6% urban madrasahs purchase equipment regularly (BANBEIS, 2015). Conducting inquiry- based teaching is quite difficult without instruments. Analogy is a vital teaching pedagogy and an excellent inquiry tool. It is not a popular pedagogical approach in our country. Teachers’ belief and understanding on analogy need to be explored and addressed in order to introduce this approach in our country. Jonane (2015) used the aspects discussed above for exploring teachers’ view regarding analogy.

Framework for teachers’ practice

Analogies were classified into five categories according to the classification system developed by Thiele and Treagust (1994) and Curtis and Reigeluth (1984). This classification system was used to identify teachers’ frequently used analogies’ classification and therefore, teachers’ practice.

Table I. The analogical relationship between analogue and a target

Types	Definition
Structural	The analogue and target concepts in the analogy share attributes of shape and size
Functional	The analogue and target concepts in the analogy share attributes of function, behavior.
Structural-functional	The analogue and target concepts in the analogy share both structural and functional attributes.

Table II. The presentational format

Types	Definition
Verbal	The analogy is presented in the text in a verbal format only
Pictorial-verbal	The analogy is presented in a verbal format along with a picture, drawing or visual model of the analogue.

Table III. The level of abstraction of the analogue and target concepts

Types	Definition
Concrete-concrete	Both the analogue and the target concepts are of a concrete nature
Concrete-abstract	The analogue concept is of a concrete nature but the target concept is an abstract
Abstract-abstract	Both the analogue and the target concepts are of an abstract nature.

Table IV. The position of the analogue relative to the target

Types	Definition
Advance the organizer	The analogue concept is presented before the target concept in the text
Embedded activator	The analogue concept is presented with the target concept in the text
Post-synthesizer	The analogue concept is presented after the target concept in the text.

Table V. The level of enrichment

Types

Definition

Simple

In this type of analogy, only one similarity is underlined between the analogue and the target concepts. The analogy is formed of a simple sentence with no details.

Analogue ↔ Target

Enriched

It tells the student that the analogy is about processes, about dynamic functions and not limited to superficial structures. Indeed, the difference between a simple structural analogy and an enriched functional analogy is the addition of some form of causation; that is, a simple analogy is descriptive whereas an enriched analogy is more explanatory

Analogue ← grounds (limitations) → Target

Extended

Two or more similarity dimensions between the analogue and target concepts are underlined. Extended analogies contain a mix of simple and enriched mappings or all the mappings are enriched analogies. The “eye is like a camera” analogy is an extended analogy. The grounds on which an “eye is like a camera” are stated in each case and there are multiple shared attributes in the analogy (and some limitations or unshared attributes) (Harrison & Treagust, 2006)
Single analogue:

Analogue	←	Grounds (limitations)	→	Target
	←	Grounds (limitations)	→
	←	Grounds (limitations)	→

Multiple analogues:

Analogue	←	Grounds (limitations)	→	Target
Analogue	←	Grounds (limitations)	→	Target
Analogue	←	Grounds (limitations)	→	Target

Five aspects for classification of analogies are presented here. These aspects have been used to explore physics teachers’ current practice in secondary level.