The paper’s examples — the wheels analogy, Dana’s story, Neil’s teaching and Ian’s interview show that analogies can interest students provided the stories are contextually, intellectually and socially familiar. Three recommendations seem pertinent: First, teachers need a rich and varied set of analogies that stimulate their own and their students’ creative imaginations. When teachers and students coconstruct analogical explanations using the students’ shared experiences, effective learning often results. Second, teachers need a systematic strategy for presenting analogies so that the analogy’s familiarity and interest is assured; the shared attributes are mapped in a way that enhances relational knowledge; and a means exists to check that the students realise when and where the analogy breaks down. This strategy is available in the FAR guide (see pp. 20–21). Third, it is important that we study which analogies interest students, why students are interested in these analogies, and which concepts are best developed using these analogies.
CITATION STYLE
Harrison, A. G. (2006). The Affective Dimension of Analogy. In Metaphor and Analogy in Science Education (pp. 51–63). Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3830-5_5
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.