nach oben

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Erschienen in:

15.05.2020

Effects of Analogical Learning Approaches and Presentation Modalities on Ninth Graders’ Learning Outcome and Eye Movements: a Preliminary Study

verfasst von: Sheng-Chang Chen, Hsiao-Ching She

Erschienen in: Journal of Science Education and Technology | Ausgabe 4/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This study analyzed the impact of different analogical learning approaches (analogies or metaphors) integrated with different presentation modalities (pictures or texts) on middle school students’ learning performance of electricity with supporting evidence from their eye movement behaviors. Eighty ninth-grade middle school students were randomly assigned into four groups to receive four different versions of an online electricity learning program, including pictorial analogies, textual analogies, pictorial metaphors, and textual metaphors. Data regarding students’ eye movement behaviors were collected simultaneously during their online learning. All the students took a pre-test, post-test, and retention test covering their comprehension of electricity concepts. Our results revealed that the analogy group provided more mapping and integration behaviors between the analog and target concepts about electricity, resulting in gaining better performance than the metaphor group. Additionally, students receiving pictorial modality generated more mapping and integration behaviors between the analog and target concepts, resulting in a better understanding of electricity concepts than students learning with textual modality. The associated implications for analogical learning approaches and presentation modalities concerning science learning and eye movement behaviors are also discussed in the paper.

Vorheriger Artikel An Investigation of University Students and Professionals’ Professional STEM Identity Status

Nächster Artikel The Impact of STEM Attitude and Thinking Style on Computational Thinking Determined via Structural Equation Modeling

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Alemdag, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2018). A systematic review of eye tracking research on multimedia learning. Comput Educ, 125, 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.023.CrossRef

Amin, T. G. (2015). Conceptual metaphor and the study of conceptual change: research synthesis and future directions. Int J Sci Educ, 37(5–6), 966–991. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1025313.CrossRef

Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: a proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: advances in research and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60422-3.CrossRef

Aubusson, P., Harrison, A., & Ritchie, S. M. (2004). Metaphor and analogy in science education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Publishing https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3830-5.

Chen, T. C., & She, H. C. (2012). Research of on-line learning for conceptual change and scientific reasoning. In C. B. Lee & D. Jonassen, (Eds.), Fostering conceptual change with technology: Asia perspective (pp.141–172). Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia Pte Ltd.

Chen, S. C., She, H. C., Chuang, M. H., Wu, J. Y., Tsai, J. L. & Jung, T. P. (2014). Eye movements predict students' computer-based assessment performance of physics concepts in different presentation modalities. Computers & Education, 74, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.012.

Chen, S. C., Hsiao, M. S., & She, H. C. (2015). The effects of static versus dynamic 3D representations on 10th grade students' atomic orbital mental model construction: Evidence from eye movement behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.003.

Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends Cogn Sci, 4(11), 417–423. 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2.

Bauhoff, V., Huff, M., & Schwan, S. (2012). Distance matters: spatial contiguity effects as trade-off between gaze switches and memory load. Appl Cogn Psychol, 26(6), 863–871. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2887.CrossRef

Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474212076.CrossRef

Celik, H. (2016). An examination of cross sectional change in student’s metaphorical perceptions towards heat, temperature and energy concepts. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(3), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.86044.CrossRef

Chiu, M. H., & Lin, J. W. (2005). Promoting fourth graders' conceptual change of their understanding of electric current via multiple analogies. J Res Sci Teach, 42(4), 429–464. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20062.CrossRef

Chuang, M. H., & She, H. C. (2013). Fostering 5th grade student’s understanding of science via salience analogical reasoning in on-line and classroom learning environments. Educ Technol Soc. 16(3), 102–118.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: the influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Sci Educ, 90(6), 1073–1091. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20164.CrossRef

Cook, M., Carter, G., & Wiebe, E. N. (2008). The interpretation of cellular transport graphics by students with low and high prior knowledge. Int J Sci Educ, 30(2), 239–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601187168.CrossRef

Daane, A. R., Haglund, J., Robertson, A. D., Close, H. G., & Scherr, R. E. (2018). The pedagogical value of conceptual metaphor for secondary science teachers. Sci Educ, 102(5), 1051–1076. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21451.CrossRef

De Koning, B., Tabbers, H., Rikers, R., & Paas, F. (2010). Attention guidance in learning from a complex animation: seeing is understanding? Learn Instr, 20(2), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.010.CrossRef

Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Sci Educ, 75(6), 649–672. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750606.

Dutke, S., & Rinck, M. (2006). Multimedia learning: working memory and the learning of word and picture diagrams. Learn Instr, 16(6), 526–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.002.CrossRef

Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., & Gentner, D. (1989). The structure-mapping engine: algorithm and examples. Artif Intell, 41(1), 1–63. 10.1016/0004-3702(89)90077-5.

Flavell, J. H. (1971). Stage-related properties of cognitive development. Cogn Psychol, 2(4), 421–453. 10.1016/0010-0285(71)90025-9.

Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199–241). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511529863.011.CrossRef

Gentner, D., & Colhoun, J. (2010). Analogical processes in human thinking and learning. In B. Glatzeder, V. Goel, & A. von Müller (Eds.), Towards a theory of thinking (pp. 35–48). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03129-8_3.CrossRef

Gentner, D., & Gentner, D. R. (1983). Flowing water or teeming crowds: mental models of electricity. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 99–120). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315802725-10.CrossRef

Gentner, D., Falkenhainer, B., & Skorstad, J. (1988). Viewing metaphor as analogy. In D. H. Helman (Ed.), Analogical reasoning: perspectives of artificial intelligence, cognitive science and philosophy (pp. 171–177). Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7811-0_8.CrossRef

Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., & Boronat, C. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In D. Centner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 199–253). Cambridge: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1251.003.0010.CrossRef

Gilbert, S. W. (1989). An evaluation of the use of analogy, simile, and metaphor in science texts. J Res Sci Teach, 26(4), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660260405.CrossRef

Glynn, S. M. (1991). Explaining science concepts: a teaching-with-analogies-model. In S. Glynn, R. Yeany, & B. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 219–240). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203052396.CrossRef

Glynn, S. M., Britton, B. K., Semrud-Clikeman, M., & Muth, K. D. (1989). Analogical reasoning and problem solving in science textbooks. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds. ), A handbook of creativity: Assessment, research and theory (pp. 383–398). New York: Plenum. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5356-1_21.

Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. J Learn Sci, 14(1), 69–110. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1401_4.CrossRef

Gust, H., Krumnack, U., Kühnberger, K. U., & Schwering, A. (2008). Analogical reasoning: a core of cognition. Künstl Intell, 22(1), 8–12.

Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (1998). Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602350.CrossRef

Hochpöchler, U., Schnotz, W., Rasch, T., Ullrich, M., Horz, H., McElvany, N., & Baumert, J. (2013). Dynamics of mental model construction from text and graphics. Eur J Psychol Educ, 28(4), 1105–1126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0156-z.CrossRef

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Sci Educ, 88(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106.CrossRef

Irish, T., & Kang, N.-H. (2017). Connecting classroom science with everyday life: teachers’ attempts and students’ insights. Int J Sci Math Educ, 16(7), 1227–1245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9836-0.CrossRef

Issing, L. J. (1990). Learning from pictorial analogies. Eur J Psychol Educ, 5(4), 489–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173134.CrossRef

Jacob, R. J. K., & Karn, K. S. (2003). Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: ready to deliver the promises. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The Mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 573–605). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-044451020-4/50031-1.CrossRef

Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cogn Psychol, 8(4), 441–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90015-3.CrossRef

Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: an emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Sci Educ, 91(6), 1010–1030. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20219.CrossRef

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001.CrossRef

Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cogn Sci, 11(1), 65–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6708.1987.tb00863.x.CrossRef

Lin, H. S., Shiau, B. R., & Lawrenz, F. (1996). The effectiveness of teaching science with pictorial analogies. Res Sci Educ, 26(4), 495–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02357457.CrossRef

Mason, L., Tornatora, M. C., & Pluchino, P. (2013). Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Comput Educ, 60(1), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.011.CrossRef

Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.004.CrossRef

Méheut, M., & Psillos, D. (2004). Teaching–learning sequences: aims and tools for science education research. Int J Sci Educ, 26(5), 515–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690310001614762.CrossRef

Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: a theory-guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Sci Educ, 96(5), 849–877. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21026.CrossRef

Olander, C., Wickman, P. O., Tytler, R., & Ingerman, Å. (2018). Representations as mediation between purposes as junior secondary science students learn about the human body. Int J Sci Educ, 40(2), 204–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1407464.CrossRef

Paivio, A. (1975). Perceptual comparisons through the mind’s eye. Mem Cogn, 6(3), 635–647. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198229.CrossRef

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: a dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195066661.001.0001.CrossRef

Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: retrospect and current status. Can J Psychol, 45(3), 255–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084295.CrossRef

Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol Bull, 124(3), 372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372.CrossRef

Rayner, K. (2009). The thirty fifth Sir Frederick Bartlett lecture: eye movements and attention during reading, scene perception, and visual search. Q J Exp Psychol, 62(8), 1457–1506. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461.CrossRef

Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1981). Analogical processes in learning. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 335–359). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2015). Signals foster multimedia learning by supporting integration of highlighted text and diagram elements. Learn Instr, 36, 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.11.002.CrossRef

Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learn Instr, 13(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8.CrossRef

Schnotz, W., & Wagner, I. (2018). Construction and elaboration of mental models through strategic conjoint processing of text and pictures. J Educ Psychol, 110(6), 850–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000246.CrossRef

Shipstone, D. M. (1984). A study of children understands of electricity in simple DC circuits. Eur J Sci Educ, 6(2), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528840060208.CrossRef

Thomas, G. P., & McRobbie, C. J. (2001). Using a metaphor for learning to improve students’ metacognition in the chemistry classroom. J Res Sci Teach, 38(2), 222–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:23.0.CO;2-S.CrossRef

Venville, G., Gribble, S. J., & Donovan, J. (2005). An exploration of young children’s understandings of genetics concepts from ontological and epistemological perspectives. Sci Educ, 89(4), 614–633. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20061.CrossRef

Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A. (1989). Similarity and analogical reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511529863.CrossRef

Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2011). Structure-mapping in metaphor comprehension. Cogn Sci, 35(8), 1456–1488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01194.x.CrossRef

Yang, F. Y. (2017). Examining the reasoning of conflicting science information from the information processing perspective-an eye movement analysis. J Res Sci Teach, 54(10), 1347–1372. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21408.CrossRef

Zeitoun, H. H. (1984). Teaching scientific analogies: a proposed model. Res Sci Technol Educ, 2(2), 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514840020203.CrossRef

Titel: Effects of Analogical Learning Approaches and Presentation Modalities on Ninth Graders’ Learning Outcome and Eye Movements: a Preliminary Study
verfasst von: Sheng-Chang Chen
Hsiao-Ching She
Publikationsdatum: 15.05.2020
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Science Education and Technology / Ausgabe 4/2020
Print ISSN: 1059-0145
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1839
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09835-7

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten

Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.

Zur Marktübersicht

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2020

TechCheck: Development and Validation of an Unplugged Assessment of Computational Thinking in Early Childhood Education

The Impact of STEM Attitude and Thinking Style on Computational Thinking Determined via Structural Equation Modeling

Investigating Students’ Explanations about Friction Concepts after Interacting with a Visuohaptic Simulation with Two Different Sequenced Approaches

Virtual Reality: a Tool for Preservice Science Teachers to Put Theory into Practice

An Investigation of University Students and Professionals’ Professional STEM Identity Status

Children’s Emotions in Design-Based Learning: a Systematic Review

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten