You are on page 1of 226





 































20071428








































      







       
         
       

       
       



































































































































































































































































































7
8









3
4
5
6












test T

10




T.test


11





 "Z"  "U" 


 


 "Z"  "U" 
 


12











T.test














"Z""U"










 "Z"  "U"  
 


















































































































  


    



  






  





    
  
  


 T.Test 



    


   



     






   
























o
 o
 o
 o
 o
 o
 o

























  





  




 

 


 





 



 96:2002







 62:2004 




 





 





 

 

  





 




  






 
 


 





   



       


(Clement,1993)



    
 (Brown,1994)






























 


 


 


 




 




  

 







      


     


   



   






 






 

 








 




 





 








  

 

  
  

























 o
 o
 o

























 

 

 




 
 









 15:2003 






 192:2003 



 106:2002 

 192:2003 
 




 17:2003 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 19:2003 
 






 
 
 
 
 
 


 
 

 



 107:2003  

 
 

 












 96:2002
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 





 



  

 66:2003 


 

 

 

 



 

 
 







 

 



















 20:2003 

 






 
 
 
 

 



 499:1999 


















































 


 135:2003



 
 71:2004
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
V 
E5
E7


















 





 117:2000






 
 
 283:2000 










  (12:1998   

 135:1998 


 
 
 
 
   


   

       


  255:2002  










 

 




 


 
  


 
 
 
  

 








 









  

 Pragmatic




Semantic 
Structural 

 
 









 


Concertizing Function
Structurizing Function

An Active 
Assimilation Function



 





 
 283:2000
 
 
 
 






  
 255:2002
 

 

Visualisation 
 


 




 






 






















 283:2000  


 

 


 


 















 45:1998 
( Compound Analogies )  

 
AIDS


Narrative Analogies 



 
HP

   










 





VERBAL 
PICTORIAL 
LEVEL OF ENRICHMENT 


SIMPLE  

ENRICHED 


EXTENDED 







EXPLANATION 



STRATEGY LDENTIFICATION 
 


ANALOGICAL LIMITATION 





 260:2002 
Compound Analogies 








 
 


Narrative Analogies 
 




 

  


Peripheral Analogies   





 
 







Procedural Analogies 
 

 55:2002 

[Thiele and Treagust, 1994, 234-238]

Format

Verbal
Pictorial


Level of Enrichment


   Simple  

 
Enriched









Extended Analogies

Analog Explanation


 
 

 
Analogical Limitations




  


[Solomon, 1994, 373]
Analog Format



Analog type





 Structural  
 
  Surface
(Lawson, 1993, 1213)







(Dagher, 1995)
Compound Analogies

    
aids   
 
Aids

Narrative Analogies 

   

    
 





Procedural Analogies


    

  
  




   





 


 
 48:1998
  

  





 enriched  Simple   

 extended




   49:2002   



Student's 
Characteristics


Student's Characteristics



Familiarity with Analogy  




Prior Knowledge about the topic 








Analogical Reasoning Ability 




C is to --F-----?
A is to B as
Bird is to A as Fish is to --C-----?


 48:1998   

Piagetian Cognitive Level 

   
   













Visual Imagery 



 Kekule)
Cognitive Complexity 


Integrating Structure


Discrimination Structure
 








Instructiona Variables


Complexity of the Analogy

  
  

 
Degree of Concreteness of 
Analog





 Physical 
 
  Pictorial







Number of the Analogues Included in the Analog.


    

    
 
Format of Presenting the Analog

Mixed Format

   

 
Separate Format 

  









Student Self- Developed Analog Strategy



Guided Teaching Strategy




Expository - Teaching Strategy 






Medium of presenting the 
Analog











 258:2002 

 






 
 





.?(D) is to C as B is to A
 Air is to bird as ..is to fish? (water)
  
 
   









 
  













  
  

 
 
 


























   
   


     
    

  










   
 
 
 




 

 
 


  
  
  
  Radford
  
Synectics 
  Gordon






    Gordon 
Synectics
Synectics 


     





Syntax for making the strange familiar

Substantive Input 
  
 
Direct Analogy  
 
 





Personal Analogy  

Comparing Analogies    

   
 
Explaining Differences 

  
Exploration 

  
Generating Analogy 
 
     
 
: 

 







  






  
Analysis of the learning material of the topic

 




 







 



   
   






















  

  







  
















 














 






















  



 


  



  





  
  



 
 
  
  






  
 

 
 


 


 

 
  
  







 
   










  






  




  












































 


  1985 


  




 13:1998 
 

 (9:1998 


 

 
 230:1999







    


   



 672002  

  78:2004  


 29:2006




 
 

 








  


  




 : 




   

 
 
 
 

 1985 
 
 
 
   
 




















 
 78:2004
      
 

      


 
  
 
 

 





  




 682002 

 
 
 







 792004 













 682002 
 

  





   792004 
  68:2002
 79:2004






  842004 


 702002
 

 
 






 
 

 

  
 






 

 

 












  


 




 702002   







 
 
 
 



 

  







  


  
 
 








 
 





 

 






 

 






   




 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 

 





 
 

 

 




























































   
 







   







 
  






 



  





 
      
 







  




 


  
   














  


 




     

 



  




  

 2000/1999




  






















 solomon 


   
 

  

 
   
  
  
 





  


  

  



  


 Brown 





   
   
  


 











  






   








 1993Clement 



 
  15  
 55  150 
Massach Usehes


  


(1993 
 

 
 80 





 60 

 



 Brown) 




 

  








  








 









  




   
   










 1998    2000  2000  2000
    Clement  (1994  Brown)

B   1999BBrown  2002  
(1992BBrown)  1993
Solomon  1998  2000 B 





 1994
        
(
 



 
 
  
 

    (
 1993 

 
 80 




   
 


 








 








 2002B 
 1998  2000  2006  















 2006 


 

  
  








  




  
   
 
  








  







  



  










 1999 Tahsin 


B
  3)  
 29   


91  (113)  
 22







B


  


 

  
      

 


 1998 





 40 
 76  20)
^  39   37)











  




  
     




 1998Palmer ) 



 8  
 11   275  
 10%) 
 70% 
  

 1994 



 


 40    12  
 35 

 








 1995Ranner 



 BBB 
 
 
 14  124  133 
 60.8   Oklahoma

 93 

    








  1999    
 1999Tahsin 

 80








 1995BRanner)  1999B   
  1999Tahsin  
 1994palmer 1999







BTahsin  
 1995BRanner (1999Palmer) 1999



    




 

































 

 



 
 


 

 











 

  





































 o
 o
 o
 o
 o
 o
 o











 



 

  







 













 



1- 









    
   
   



























 

 1987 

 
  
 



:







 








 






  


 2006  
 
  







  




44

53

 
44



  
83 100X44 100X 
53






   
  








 2 





 2 





   

.

 





 







 

 

 









 

 











 



   
 46)
  




 BB 









 

 4 3 2 1 
    
 





 46 
 
   46 



 
  





B
   46 








 40 






        
    


     
  


 SPSS


















 3 





 0.362

A1

 0.338

A4

0.526

A6

 0.381

A9

 0.309
*0.322
*0.351
**0.415
**0.567
*0.353
**0.425
*0.371
*0.358
*0.338
**0.415
**0.443
**0.493
**0.405


A11

A13

A19

A20

A23
A24 
A27 
A30 
A32 
A35 
A36 
A37 
A39 
A43 
 
 










 4  






*0.327
A2

*0.381
A7

*0.360
A10

*0.352
A12

**0.643
A15

**0.463
A17

*0.377
A22

**0.409
A25

**0.405
A26
*0.378
A31 
**0.442
A33 
**0.659
A34 
*0.316
A38 
**0.401
A44 
*0.387
A45 
**0.394
A46 

  
 
















 5 







**0.395 A3

**0.506
A5

*0.345
A8

**0.536 A14

*0.305 A16

*0.363 A18

**0.417 A21

**0.583 A28

**0.503 A29
*0.334 A40 
*0.386 A41 
*0.325 A42 
 
 


  


 
   
 6 








 6 



0.871

0.476

0.795

0.483

0.632

0.813



     


.     



 
 





 9  



 7 








 

 

0.45
0.45
0.45
0.36
0.45
0.27
0.27
0.45
0.55
0.36
0.64
0.27
0.36
0.55
0.55
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.36
0.27
0.45
0.45
0.45

0.59
0.68
0.59
0.64
0.59
0.59
0.68
0.41
0.45
0.64
0.59
0.32
0.55
0.55
0.36
0.68
0.59
0.50
0.64
0.50
0.59
0.59
0.68

 

24























0.36
0.36
0.36
0.55
0.36
0.45
0.27
0.55
0.36
0.55
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.45
0.45
0.36
0.45
0.36
0.36
0.45
0.36
0.64

0.45
0.55
0.73
0.27
0.55
0.59
0.41
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.55
0.64
0.73
0.64
0.68
0.41
0.64
0.59
0.55
0.55
0.50
0.64
0.59




























(0.73 0.27 
   





       


 
  
       

   









   
   
  

  

  


 

 
 

 






















    








    

  
 9 




















  
   










   





     

   


 

 10 

 )
test T


0.582

 



0.158 14.025

40

0.221 14.05

40

 


   









 
  
T.test independent sample  
  


  
T.test

 


 



2.297
7.57 40 

0.630 0.483


2.330 7.82 40 


 


 
       
  


Mann-  
 12  Whitney Test















 12 
"Z""U"



  
Z
U  



138

12.54

11 

115

10.45

11

1.558 37.5 103.5

9.41

0.768

49









11 

 149.5

13.59

11

1.013 45.5 141.5

12.86

11 

10.14

11



 111.5




11 
123 11.18
11 


 Z  
   


0.233

57

130

11.82


(Mann-Whitney) Test  
 13 









 13 
"Z""U"


Z

  

U 

44.5 142.5
-1.067

110.5
57
123
-0.238

130
56
131
-0.325

122

12.95

133

12.09

120

10.91

-0.429

54

10.05
11.18
11.82
11.91
11.09



11 
11 

11 
11 

11 
11 

11 
11 


Z
   
 





T.test independent)  
 (sample
 14










  
T.test

 


2.89
7.1 40
1.425
2.07
6.3 40
2.56
5.55 40
0.892
1.60 5.125 40
1.89
3.65 40
1.695
1.37 3.025 40
6.08
16.3 40
1.698
3.24 14.45 40



 


    
  

























 









  

B
B
B





B
B
B
B

  
 



 BB 




BB (2006/10/4)
 2006/11/22)




 









B



2006/11/25
 2006/12/16







 
T.test 
 
d 























 o
 o
 o
 o
 o
 o























 


     



 
 15 T.test Independent Sample















 15 





 

4.31

2.78

5.83
5.17
5.77


14.92

40

2.91

12.17

40

2.36

12.52

40

2.53

9.32

40

1.64

8.75

40

2.32

6.43 40

5.84

36.2

40

6.93

27.93

40





     


     






 2









 16 














0.2

2
D

d 2 18 


 17 



D









4.31

78









5.83

78









5.17

78







5.77

78














 







 




  







 2002   
 1998  2000 




















 0.05 


   
 18 Mann-Whitney Test
 18 
"Z""U"


Z U
2.70
2.21

1.50

-2.47

 





167

15.18

11



86

7.82

11



27.5 159.5 14.5



93.5
8.5
38
149 13.55

104
9.45

11



11



11



11



20


23

164

14.91

11



89

8.09

11





   Z


   Z







 1.503 Z 


  
     



    Z 
 
     
   


 19 










.647 2.706



.550

2.213



.361

1.503



605

2.473













      



 


 
 

 

 




Clement 
 1993  1993)














 


 0.05 
 




 20 Mann-Whitney Test

  
"Z""U"


Z
3.09
3.30

2.49
3.32


U
14
10.5
23
10

173

15.72

11



80

7.27

11



176.5

16.04

11



76.5

6.95

11



164

14.90

11



89

8.09

177

16.09

11
11



76

6.90

11









 .   Z 


 



 21 






Z



.706

3.1

.732

3.30

.608

2.49

.734

3.33







      



 














 1993  Clement 1993)



























 0.05 


 22 T.test paired sample
 22 




1.778
0.530
1.433
1.554

2.786 14.925
40
2.769 14.850
40
2.364 12.525
40
2.253 12.475 40
1.645 8.750
40
1.588 8.700
40
5.841 36.200

40

5.600 36.025

40



     


     





 







 





(Clement 1993)  Brown1994 (2002 
















































 

 


 

 

 




















 


 

 

 

 






















 o
 o




















   

  



  


  
   

   



  

 

  





  

  






  

 

   


  

       

 

www.gbland- 
 info/up3/c3b93862laigif)
   


  

  



   

 


 
  

 





  


  
 



  


  

  

    

  

   

 
  


  
v









 







  


    


  

  


  
 

  


   

 

   


  


 




  






  



  






























* Brown,D.E (1992): "Using Examples And Analogies To
Remidiale Misconceptions in physics: Factors In fluencing
conceptual change" Journal of Research in science Teaching,
Vol.29, No.1, PP(17-34).
*Brown, De (1994): "Facilitaing conceptual change vsing
Analogies and Explamatory Models", Imt..Jour. sci.educ.
,Vol.16, No.2, PP(201-214).
*Clement,John (1993): Using Bridging Analogies And
Anchoring Intuitions to Deal With Students Preconception in
physics," Journal of Research In science Teaching, Vol.30,
No.10, PP(1241-1257).
*Dagher.Z.R(1995): Review Of Studes On The
Effectiveeness Of Instructional Analogies In science
Teaching, Vol.79, No.3, PP(295-312).
*Khalid, Tahsin(1999): "The Study Of Pre-Servece Teacters
Alternative Conceptions Regarding Three Ecological Issues,
Paper Presented At The Annual Meeting Of "Neural
Associaition For Research In Science Teaching, PP(28-31).
*Kruger,Colim&Summer,Mike(1998):
Primary
School
Teachers Under Studing Of Journal Of Research In Science
Teaching< Vol.14, No.3, PP(259-265).
*Kliener,C.S(1991): The Effects of Synecties Tranind On
Student Creativity And Achievement In Science , Dissertion
Abvstract Inter National, Vol.52, No.3.
*Lawson,D.L.Lawson, A E(1993):"Neural Principles of
memory and neural Theory of Analogical in sight, Journal of
Research in science Teaching, Vol.30, No.10, PP(13271348).
*Meador,K.S.(1994):"The effect of sy ncetics traing on gifted
and non gifted kinde-garten student", Jornal os the Education
of the gifted, Vol.18, No.1.





*Pamer,David.H(1998): Measuring Contextual Error In The


Diagnosis Of Alternative Conceptions In Science, Issues In
Educational Research, Vol.18, No.1, PP(65-76).
*Renner,John W&Others(1990): Under Studing And
Misunderstanding Of Eighth Greaders Of Four Physics
Concepts, Journal Of Research In Science Teaching, Vol.27,
No.1, PP(35-54).
*Solomon,L(1994):"Analogical Transfer And Functional
Fixedness In The Science Classroom" Jornal of educational
research, Vol.87, No.6, PP(371-377).
*Stavy,Ruth(1990): Children`s Conception Of Changes In
The State Of Matter Fromm Liquid (or Solid) To Gas, Journal
Of Research In Science Teaching, Vol.27, No.3, PP(247-266).
*Thiele,R.B& Treagust, D.F(1995): Analogies In Chemistry
Textbooks, Int.J-Sci. Educ, Vol.17, No.6, PP(783-795).
*Teragust,D.F(1992):"Science Teachers Using Of Analogies
Observation Froms Clssroom Practice" International Journal Of
Science Education, Vol.1, No.4.

















































 





     





  
 
  





 

  





  

 



   

    








 

































































































































 






















































































































































































































 




 


 





































  





































 




  


    






    





























CO2












































 































































  





 



 



  




 

  







 






  



 



 





 










 




 



  



  




 



  







  



 



 




 




 



 









 



 




 



 




 










 



 



 



 




 



 

  






>@
 



 




 



 



 
    
    

 







 



 




 














 










 



 






 




















 




 
24



1



25





26





27





28





29





30





31





32





33



10



34



11



35



12



36



13



37



14



38



15



39



16



40



17





 
41






18



19



42



43



44



21



45



22



46



23



20
























 

 
 


 





 

























































11









  










   



 





















 






  
 


























































  
  
  




 





























 

  



















































































































  
  
  
  














   






































 



























  
  
  















































  

   

  


































































;

































  
   

  
  













       






  

















































 



























  
  
  
  
  



  






























































 
























































































  
































;
  
  
  
  
  





















































  











 
 
































 















    








































  



 
















 




























 





















 



 





  














;
  





  


  
  
  




  
  

  
















































   

  








 



















































  































    



    












;
  

  


  






































 







  
  
  




















































  
  
  
  


  
  












;
  
  
  





































   

    

 

 
















 









































    































  



    

















































 











    



  
  
















































































































    
  





  
 

 



























  






























































    






    







  
  
  





















The Islamic University


The Higher Studies
Education College
Curricla And Methodologe Department

The Impact of using the Analogical Strategy on


Acquiring and keeping the scientific concepts of
science for Ninth Grade Female Students in Gaza

Prepared by the student:


Eman Ishaq Al Agha

Supervised by:
Dr. Fatheya Sobhy Al Lulu
Associate Professor in Scince Mathology and Curricula

This study is presented to terminate the requirements of obtaining M.A


degree in education / science Methodology and Curricula from the
Islamic University in Gaza

2007/1428





Abstact
The science concepts stand for a significant object of
science learning and teaching methodology objects, because of
its occupying a prominent postion at the science scale and
structure, and its acquiring properly helps the students to
explain the Scientific phenomena and practice the Scientists,
behaviour at predicting and controlling the Scientific
phenomena So the study aimed at recognizing the impact of
using the analogical strategy on acquiring the Scientific
concepts of science subject for ninth grade female student in
Gaza. The study problem was defined in the following dead
question: What is the impact of using the analogical strategy on
acquiring the Scientific concepts of science subject for ninth
grade female student in Gaza?.
And in order to answer the study problem question, the
following hypotheses were composed:
- Ther is no statical difference at (a 0.05) level that due to
using the analogical strategy between the marks average of the
experimental group and the controlled group at the scienific
concepts test.
- Ther is no statical difference at (a 0.05) level that due to
using the analogical strategy between the marks average of the
highly female student of the experimental group and the
controlled group at the scienific concepts test.
- Ther is no statical difference at (a 0.05) level that due to
using the analogical strategy between the marks average of
female student who are depressed in educational achievement
in oth the experimental and the controlled groups at the
scienific concepts test.
- Ther is no statical difference at (a 0.05) level that due to
using the analogical strategy between the marks average of
female student of the experimental group at the direct
dimensional implementtation of the achievement test and the
postponed dimensional implementtation of the same test.
The researcher used the experimental method where the stydy
samplewas chosen from ninth grade female students of Hasan





Salama Preparatory School in Gaza in the study year of (20052006). The students sample size was 80 female students where
they were divided in to tow groups: the experimental and the
controlled groups. The independent variable was subjugated
(using the analogical strategy) by examination and measuring
its impact on the subsequent variable (the scientific concepts)
And accomplish the study objectives, the researcher composed
the scientific concepts,s test, a teacher guide and the student,s
activity book. After testing its validity and durability, the test
was implemented before examination on both the experimental
and the controlled groups and sfter the study implementation
the researcher used T.Test and Mann Witney test inorder to
recognize the difference denotation between the highlyachieved student and the depressed students in both groups at
the scientific concepts test.
The results were:- Ther are statistical difference at (a 0.05) level that due to
using the analogical strategy between the marks average of the
experimental group and the controlled group at acquiring the
scienific concepts in favor of the experimental group.
- Ther are statistical difference at (a 0.05) level that due to
using the analogical strategy between the marks average of the
highly-achieved female student of the experimental group and
those of the controlled group at acquiring the scienific concepts
in favor of the experimental group.
- Ther are statistical difference at (a 0.05) level that due to
using the analogical strategy between the marks average of the
experimental group female student who are depressed students
of the controlled group at acquiring the scienific concepts in
favor of the experimental group.
- Ther are statistical difference at (a 0.05) level that due to
using the analogical strategy between the marks average of
female student of the experimental group in the direct
dimensional implementtation of the achievement test and the
postponed dimensional implementtation of the same test.





According to the study results, the researcher recommended the


following:- Employing the analogical strategy by teachers in teaching the
students science subject at the high and low achieving level.
- Urging supervisors and school administration to train teachers
on this strategy and encouraging them to use it inside their
classes.
-Holding workshops for science subject teachers in order to
train them how to use the analogical strategy.
- Working on students, acquiring the eamprehensive
fundamental scientific concepts.





You might also like