Abstract
Discerning similarities and differences are fundamental cognitive operations for learning. Four important strategies for engaging students in using these foundational operations (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001) are (1) comparing similarities and contrasting differences; (2) classifying things into categories based on characteristics; (3) creating analogies that map relationships between pairs of concepts; and (4) creating metaphors that show similar patterns from different domains.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Adúriz-Bravo, A., Bonan, L., Galli, L. G., Chion, A. R., & Meinardi, E. (2005). Scientific argumentation in pre-service biology teacher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 1(1), 76–83.
Anderson, J. R. (2005). Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
Apthorp, H. S., Dean, C., & Igel, C. (2012). Using similarities and differences: A meta-analysis of its effect and emergent patterns. School Science and Mathematics, 112(4), 204–216.
Arnold, M., & Millar, R. (1996). Exploring the use of analogy in the teaching of heat, temperature and thermal equilibrium. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe: Current issues and themes. London, England: Farmer Press.
Ashmann, S. (2009). The pennies-as-electrons analogy: An engaging model helps upper elementary students understand the flow of electricity. Science and Children, 47(4), 24–27.
Black, M. (1954). Metaphor: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 55, 273–294.
Blanchette, I., & Dunbar, K. (2001). Analogy use in naturalistic settings: The influence of audience, emotion, and goals. Memory & Cognition, 29, 730–735.
Brooks, R. A. (1999). Intelligence without representation. Cambrian intelligence: The early story of the new Al. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brown, D. E., & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science, 18(4), 237–261.
Casakin, H. (2004). Visual analogy as a cognitive strategy in the design process: Expert versus novice performance. Journal of Design Research, 4(2).
Chiou, G.-L., & Anderson, O. R. (2009). A study of undergraduate physics students’ understanding of heat conduction based on mental model theory and an ontology-process analysis. Science Education, 94(5), 825–854.
Chuang, C., Jin, B.-Y., Tsoo, C.-C., Tang, N. Y.-W., Cheung, P. S. M., & Cuccia, L. A. (2012). Molecular modeling of fullerenes with beads. Journal of Chemical Education, 89, 414−416.
Condell, J., Wade, J., Galway, L., McBride, M., Gormley, P., Brennan, J., … Somasundram, T. (2010). Problem solving techniques in cognitive science. Artificial Intelligence Review, 34, 221–234.
Darwin, C. R. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life (1st ed.). London, England: John Murray.
Davies, J., Goel, A. K., & Nersessian, N. J. (2009). A computational model of visual analogies in design. Cognitive Systems Research, 10, 204–215.
deGroot, A. D. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
Easton, G., & Ormerod, T. C. (2001). Expert/Novice difference in case analysis: Final report to the European case clearing house. Retrieved from http://www.ecch.com/files/downloads/research/RP0303M.pdf
Eberle, R. F. (1972). Developing imagination through Scamper. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 199–203.
Educational Testing Service. (2012). G. R. E. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/gre
Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues.
In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts, science and games (pp. 1–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Flannery, M. C. (2009). Mirrors and maps: Two sides of metaphor. The American Biology Teacher, 71(6), 371–374.
Ferguson, E. S. (1992). Engineering and the mind’s eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Foreman, L., & Drummond, M. (2008). Rebel, rebel: James Dyson bucked the odds – Now his vacuum business is cleaning up. Inventor’s Digest, 24(6), 18–24.
Gardiner, K. M. (2007).The future city competition – A successful stem experience for middle school students. Proceedings, ASEE New England Section, Spring Meeting, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.
Gentner, D., & Lowenstein, J. (2002). Relational language and relational thought. In E. Amsel & J. P Byrnes (Eds.), Language, literacy, and cognitive development: The development and consequences of symbolic communication (pp. 87–120). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 393–408.
Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., Thompson, L., & Forbus, K. D. (2009). Reviving inert knowledge:Analogical abstraction supports relational retrieval of past events. Cognitive Science, 33, 1343–1382.
Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45–56.
Gentner, D., & Medina, J. (1998). Similarity and the development of rules. Cognition, 65, 263–297.
Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students.
London, England: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Gibson, K. (2008). Analogy in scientific argumentation. Technical Communication Quarterly, 17(2),
202–219.
Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 3 – 17). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Glynn, S. M. (2004). Connect concepts with questions and analogies. In T. R. Koballa & D. J. Tippins (Eds.), Cases in middles ad secondary science education (pp. 136–142). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Education.
Glynn, S. (2007). The teaching with analogies model: Build conceptual bridges with mental models. Science and Children, 44(8), 52–55.
Glynn, S. M., Duit, R., & Thiele, R. B. (1995). Teaching science with analogies: A strategy for constructing knowledge. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 247–273). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goldstein, E. B. (2005) Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research, and everyday experience. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Gordon, W. J. (1961). Synectics: The development of creative capacity. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Gordon, W. J. J. (1974). Making it strange (Books 1–4). New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Grady, K., & Jeanpierre, B. (2011). Population 75 trillion: Cells, organelles, and their functions. Science Scope, 34(5), 64–69.
Guerre-Ramos, M. T. (2011). Analogies as tools for meaning making in elementary science education: How do they work in classroom settings? Eurasian Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,7(1), 29–39.
Guilford, J. P. (1986). Creative talents: Their nature, uses, and development. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Harrison, A., & Treagust, D. (1993). Teaching with analogies: A case study in grade-10 optics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1291–1307.
Harré, R (1972). The philosophies of science: An introductory survey. London, England: Oxford University Press.
Haven, K. (2007). 100 greatest science discoveries of all time. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Hung, S. Y. (2003). Expert versus novice use of executive support systems: An empirical study. Information and Management, 40(3), 177–189.
Jakobson, B., & Wickman, P.-O. (2007). Transformation through language use: Children’s spontaneous metaphors in elementary school science. Science and Education, 16, 267–289.
Kahney, H. (1994). Problem solving current issues (2nd ed.). Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Models of competence in solving physics problems. Cognitive Science, 4, 317–345.
Lightman, A. (2005). Moments of truth. New Scientist, 188(2526), 36–41.
Marcelos, M. F., & Nagem, R. L. (2012). Use of the “tree” analogy in evolution teaching by biology teachers. Science and Education, 21, 507–541.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Michalko, M. (1998). Cracking creativity: The secrets of creative genius. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.
Nassiff, P., & Czerwinski, W. (2012). Modeling atoms using paperclips. Journal of Chemical Education, 89, 370–372.
National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment and National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
National Engineers Week Future City® Competition. (2011). Future city competition. Retrieved from http://futurecity.org/
Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Mental modeling in conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research in conceptual change (pp. 391–416). New York, NY: Routledge.
Orgill, M., & Bodners, G. (2007). Locks and keys: An analysis of biochemistry students’ use of analogies. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35(4), 244–254.
Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Scribner.
Perrine, N. E., & Broderden, R. M. (2005). Artistic and scientific creative behavior: Openness and the mediating role of interests. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39(4), 217–236.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The knowing–doing gap. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Philbin, T. (2003). The 100 greatest inventions of all time. New York, NY: Citadel Press.
PsychCorp. (2011). Pearson clinical assessment: Miller analogies test. Retrieved from http://psychcorp.pearsonassessments.com/haiweb/Cultures/en-US/site/Community/PostSecondary/Products/MAT/mathome.htm
Root-Bernstein, R. (2003). The art of innovation: Polymaths and the universality of the creative process. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 267–278). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science, Ltd.
Rule, A. C., & Furletti, C. (2004). Using form and function analogy object boxes to teach human body systems. School Science and Mathematics, 104(4), 155–169.
Rule, A. C., Carnicelli, L., & Kane, S. S. (2004). Using poetry to teach about minerals in earth science class. Journal of Geoscience Education, 52(1), 10–14.
Rule, A. C., Baldwin, S., & Schell, R. (2008). Second graders learn animal adaptations through form and function analogy object boxes. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (9), 1159–1182.
Rule, A. C., Baldwin, S., & Schell, R. (2009). Trick-or-treat candy-getters and hornet scare devices: Second graders make creative inventions related to animal adaptations. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(3), 149–168.
Rule, A. C., Zhbanova, K., Hileman Webb, A., Evans, J., Schneider, J. S., Parpucu, H., … Ruan B. (2011).
Creative product problem-solving game: Exploring Torrance’s creative strengths by making an object from a set of given materials. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED527045.
Rule, A. C., Alkouri, Z. A., Criswell, S. J., Evans, J. L., Hileman Webb, A. N., Parpucu, H., … Zhbanova, K. S. (2012). Practicing creative thinking skills by making creative products related to economic issues. Social Studies Research and Practice, 7(3), 47–67.
Schenk, K. D., Vitalari, N. P., & Davis, S. (1998). Differences between novice and expert system analysis: What do we know and what do we do? Journal of Management of Information Systems,15(1), 9–50.
Schlichter, C. L., & Palmer, W. R. (1993). Thinking smart: A primer of the talents unlimited model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Thagard, P. (2010). Creative combination of representations: Scientific discovery and technological invention. In R. Proctor & E. J. Capaldi (Eds.), Psychology of science. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Valle, A., & Callanan, M. A. (2006). Similarity comparisons and relational analogies in parent-child conversations about science topics. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52(1), 96–124.
Venville, G., & Treagust, D. (1996). The role of analogies in promoting conceptual change in biology. Instructional Science, 24, 295–320.
Wong, E. D. (1993). Understanding the generative capacility of analogies as a tool for explanation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1259–1272.
Yilmaz, S., Eryilmas, A., & Geban, O. (2006). Assessing the impact of bridging analogies in mechanics. School Science and Mathematics, 106(6), 220–230.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rule, A.C., Olsen, B.D. (2016). Use of Analogy and Comparative Thinking in Scientific Creativity and Gifted Education. In: Demetrikopoulos, M.K., Pecore, J.L. (eds) Interplay of Creativity and Giftedness in Science. Advances in Creativity and Giftedness. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-163-2_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-163-2_17
Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam
Online ISBN: 978-94-6300-163-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)