Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(3), 187-204 ©1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Printed in the Netherlands Instructional Analogies Used by Biology Teachers: Implications for Practice and Teacher Preparation Thomas M. Mastrilli Counselor, Secondary, and Professional Education, Room 203-a Recitation Hall, West Chester University, West Chester, Pennsylvania 19383, USA The use of analogies in science teaching is an instructional strategy that is often taken for granted, Generally, analogies function by explicitly comparing two domains of knowledge. These domains are often referred to as the base (the familiar domain from which the comparison is initiated) and the target (the unfamiliar domain to be explained). Relatively little is known, however, how analogics arc cmployed in the classroom (Duit, 1991). Even less attention has been focused on teacher rationale related to the use of instructional analogies in science classrooms and their potential implications tor preservice science teacher preparation. ‘Ihis study explored the actual classroom use of analogies by inservice biology teachers and their rationale foremploying them. In this study, "analogy" is used as an umbrella termthat includes several forms of comparisons including similes, metaphors, examples, and any form of visual comparisons a teacher mightemploy. Two basic research questions guided the investigation: 1. What are the frequency and forms of analogies used by biology teachers to explain scientific concepts to their students? 2. What is die uature of teacher uuderstanding aud rationale relating, to their use? Design of the Study Sample The study was conducted in an ethnographic fashion focusing in-depth on a small number of participants. A sample of oight inservice biology teachers were chosen for the study based on a minimum of five years teaching experience and evaluations by peers, administrators, and university personnel indicating these teachers displayed ability in using a variety uf instructional techniques, The teachers were chosen from suburban and urban school districts.188 ‘THOMAS M. MASTRILLI Data Collection Data collection was accomplished primarily through audio-taping five class periods per tcachcr. Thesc obscrvations took place during February, March, and April, 1995. The teachers were not informed as to the purpose of the tapings and were asked to not alter their instruction. Classes selected tor audio-taping were ones in which the majority of the time was devoted to teaching new information or concepts. The tapes were reviewed and verbal analogies used were transcribed while visual comparisons were described in the field notes. Lesson topics, textbook passages, and written material accompanying the observed lessons were examined to determine the number and types of analogies present in these materials during the study period. The analogies observed during the study were classified according to their grammatical form as well as according to a modified version of descriptions used by Dagher (1995a). The latter classifications arc bascd primarily on the purpose and complexity of the analogy as seen within the context of the lesson. In addition, field notes were taken that included verbal descriptions of the settings, students, teachers, and the instructional strategies used, Following audio-taping, teachers were interviewed concerning their use of analogies. These interviews were also audio-taped to ensure accuracy. Data Analysis Using an interpretive methodology (Erickson, 1986), interpretations were formed regarding the frequency and nature of the analogics cmployed. ‘The task was then to formulate generalized conclusions based on a balance ofevidence. The validity and reliability of the generalized observations and interpretations were addressed by the triangulation ot as many data sources as possible (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This included the data obtained from audio-taned lessons, teacher interviews, field note observations, and general discussions with teachers. The audio-taped observations and teacher interview responses were reviewed independently by the researcher and two independont raters. The independant rators' observations and interpretations were compared with those of the researcher to improve the validity and reliability of the data interpretation, Any discrepant findings were identified aud luvesigawd. The analogies were classiled, aud dhe cacgorles aud examples of cach are explained below: 1. Simple/Descriptive. Ananalogy whichis generally simple in nature and functions mainly to describe a physical characteristic, An example fromINSTRUCTIONAL ANALOGIES 189 Ue stuuy is, "Nucloosomes in prokaryotic cells are like beads on a string.” 2. Compound. A more elaborate analogy that may employ multiple source and target domains to explain a concept or object. An example from the study is, "One feeding structure in particular I wantto focus on, and that's called a radula and it's found in a snail . . . this is a very rasping mouth part of asnail. Did you ever hear of something called a wood rasp? It's used to file down pieces of rough wood and make them smoother. Well, a radula is very similar to you having sandpaper on your tongne, very coarse sandpaper, so when you feed, ora snail feeds on aleaf, it grinds offthe upper surface of a leaf and the leaf will loose water and die. ... Did youever watch ‘@ suail yo up the side of an aquarium? They arc like a vacuum cleaner. Where they go they eat the algae and other materials off the side of the aquarium glass." 3. Spontaneous. An unintended analogy that is generated by the teacher almost as an afterthought. An example from the study is, "A mantle is a thin membrane that covers the mollusk's body. It's like this cloak here that Jennifer wore to school today. The mantle is like a coat without arms ora cloak.” 4. Example. An actual example is used to help clarify a concept or Teladvoship. Au caample frum te study is, "Let's look specifically at the class tubellaria; the most common example are planaria,” 5. Visual. A visual representation of an objector concept. Anexample from the study is when a teacher took a plastic model of a ladder structure and twisted it to represent a DNA helix. Results A total of 151 analogies were recorded forthe 40 class periods observed. ‘The term analogy indicates a comparison where A is to B as Cis to D inthe same direction, This form of “uue™ analugical comparisun was vintually non-existent. The comparisons used by teachers in the study were more specifically categorized by their grammatical or symbolic form (simile, metaphor, orother representation). A simile is a comparison where A is like C. For example, a biology teacher may say, "A vacuole in a cell is like a storage closet in a house." while a chemistry teacher may state, "Electrons remain in orbitals unless energy is provided to move them. Somewhat like books remain on different levels of a bookcase unless energy is provided to190 THOMAS M. MASTRILLI move them," Metaphors are a bit more complex in that they are a direct comparison in the A is C form. For example, a biology teacher may say, "Blood flowis life; if it stops, then biologically speaking, you are not living." A physics teacher might indicate, “Kineulc energy 1s moon.” Metaphors are often thought of as synonymous with analogy but the distinction is usually found in the explicitness of the mapping of attributes between domains, that is, whether A is C or whether A is like C, respectively (Dagher, 1995b). Table 1 displays the types and frequencies of analogies used by teachers in the study. The category termed “other” indicates either a visual Tepresentation or actual example was used. Table 1 Types and Frequencies of Analogies Used Teacher Simile Metaphor Other Total 1 8 9 0 7 2 4 8 1 13 3 3 6 2 i 4 15 8 4 27 5 19 4 2 as 6 14 15 2 31 7 8 6 I 15 8 6 6 oO 12 Total 77 62 12 151 The total number of analogies observed in 40 lessons was 151. Only Teachers 4 and 5 exhihited notable differences in their nse of smiles and metaphors. This may be, in part, a result of the content they were dealing with during the study. Most of their observed lessons focused on explaining anatomical aspects of invertebrates. It is possible the nature of the content Jed them to use more similes in an effort to relate anatomical aspects of these animals to the prior knowledge and experience of their students, Teacher 4 employed the following analogy to describe moilusk shells: The horny outer layer of a mollusk shell is like scales, like a thin layer of scales.INSTRUCTIONAL ANALOGIES 191 Teacher 5 used the following analogies to explain and relate physical characteristics of a squid: ‘The collar is the edge of the mantle .. . just like she collar urvured your shirt. This is similar to the collar around the head of the squid. Those are your gills, If I'm not mistaken, they are kind of pale white. They look like long thin feathers. Teacher 4 emphasized the use of common experiences to activate prior student knowledge while Teacher 5 explained that her relatively recent (5 years) tcacher training focused on relational comparisons as a way of "incorporating the information in the students’ brains." She went on to state, "A lot of times I'll use an analogy that sort of stimulates other ones also, I'll use one, then I'll see myself using more.” Table 2 summarizes the topics each participant taught and the number of analogies present in their textbooks conceming these topics. Table 3 summarizes the classifications of the analogies the teachers employed during the study. It would appear that those teachers who were dealing with human anatomy, as well as the anatomy of other life forms, used more analogies than those participants involved in teaching other topics. Teachers 4, 5, and 6 not only employed analogies more frequently relative to other study participants, they also utilized more of the simple/descriptive type analogy than did the other teachers in the study. This may infer that these teachers reasoned that simple/descriptive type analogies are the most cttective torm of comparison to used when explaining anatwmival characteristics to their students. This type of comparison may make anatomical structures more easily recognized and identified. Only 49 textual analogies were found within the topics included during the study period. Of these 49 comparisons, none were elaborate in nature, with virtually all of them being of the simple/descriptive type. An example that typifies this class of analogy is found in Teacher 2's textbook entitled Biology (Campbell, 1987). The textbook is referring to bacterial chromosomes on page 335 aud wads. Within a bacterium, however, the chromosome is so tightly packed that it does not even fill the whole cell, but forms a structure something like a long loop of yarn tangled into a bail. ‘These types of comparisons are generally intended to describe, in a simplified manner, a superficial physical characteristic.192 THOMAS M. MASTRILLI Table 2 Surnmury of Topics und Frequency of Textbook Analugies Teacher Topic Textbook Analogies 1 Mitosis, mosses, and ferns 5 2 Viruses, cells, and tissues 20 3 DNA, genetics, and evolution theory 6 4 Anatomy of worm and mollusk 4 5 Anatomy of worms, clam, and squid 2 6 Human anatomy 3 7 Endocrine, osmosis, and diffusion 5 8 Osmosis, diffusion, aud cell cheuisuy 4 Total 49 Table 3 Categories of Analogies Used by Teachers Teacher Simple Complex Spontaneous Example Visual 1 13 4 0 0 0 2 10 oO 2 oO 1 3 6 2 1 0 2 4 18 2 3 3 1 5 19 1 3 2 0 6 16 8 5 2 0 7 9 o 5 0 1 8 8 3 1 0 0 99 20 20 7 5 None of the teachers in the study employed analogies found in their TexIDOOKS Io any appreciable extent. 1 Ne textOOOks used by tne teacners mm. the study did not present many analogies but, when the textbook authors did employ useful comparisons, they were virtually ignored by the teachers. When asked why they did not use analogies from the textbook, all eight of the teachers indicated they did not pay much attention to their textbooks forINSTRUCTIONAL ANALOGIES 193 anything cacept new vocabulary and an occasional diagram. The teachers unanimously expressed the idea that the analogies found in the textbook were too generic in nature and not as useful as ones they generated for a specific lesson. With the exception of Teacher 2, none of the other teachers had more than six analogies present in their textbook materials during data collection. Part of the reason why teachers ignored textbook analogies may lie in the simple fact that relatively few analogies were present in the textbooks in general. Teacher 3 stated: My text is not out-dated, but it doesn't have anything useful in the way ofanalogies ether. Tofien think is would be more useful w the students to have packets of copied material instead of all the fluff and relatively useless information found in our text. Teachers 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8 stated that they really did not pay that much attention to the analogies in the textbook because they felt their own analogies were more effective and lesson specific. Interestingly, Teacher 2 had 20 analogies present in his textbook during data collection and used nono of them during his classroom observations. Teacher 2 was also dealing with the most detailed and complex material of any teacher in the study, While Teacher 2 should have found the explanatory power of analogies to be very useful in his instruction, this was not the case. Teacher 2 had the second fewest analogies overall. This may be, in part, because he was teaching an advanced placement course in which a specific amount of content coverage is expected in order for students to take anexam at the end of the school year. When asked why he did not use any of the analogies present in his texthank, he stated: 1 don't know why, probably because my main focus has to be on Content Luveruge ou thut my students ure not ata disadvantage when they take the placement exam. Nobody is going to ask me if l used or didn't use the analogies in the text. They are not high on my list of priorities for my AP kids. It becomes obvious that this teacher sees little utility in the analogies present in his textbook. The pressure to deal with unrealistic amounts of highly detailed content can force teachers into trade-offs between content coverage and more indepth understanding of fewer concepte and relationships. The teacher is not to blame; he is only responding with methods that will, in his perception, achieve the best outcome for his194 THOMAS M. MASTRILLI students. Teacher 4's textbook, Biology (Miller & Levine, 1993), specifically refers to the increased use of analogies as an improvement in this edition; however, this textbook presented only four analogies during the data collection. When he was asked if his textbook used analogies, he responded: I don't think there are as many in the book as I would like. Although itis ane thing to give an analogy orally and it's one thing to give it ina book, inwrittenform. When you state it orally, itseems to drive home the point and it makes more sense to do that. ‘Teacher 4 was the only teacher to make any comment about distinctions between textual and verbal analogies. The general interpretation conceming this question appears to be that textbook analogies are infrequent and generally not used as part of the instruction, Table 3 shows that all of the teachers, with the exception of Teacher 1, used at least one spontaneous analogy. Spontaneous analogies seemed to be used most frequently when the teacher sensed that students were having difficulty grasping aconcept. When questioned about the use of spontaneous analogies, Teacher 4 replied: I dow't have any provlem with just thinking them up on the spur uf the moment. They seem more relevant that way. Informal discussions with Teachers 4, 5, and 7 revealed that they were comfortable and more confident in using their own analogies than any they found in the textbook and believed these spontaneously generated comparisons provided more authentic and relevant explanations for their students. ‘The majority of the participante indicated their uso of analogies was spontaneous in nature and almost exclusively predicated upon a student asking a question or teacher perception of students experiencing difficulty. Teacher 0 expressed the noon that the spontaneous use OF analogies is, some manner, more natural and, therefore, more accepted by his students. When asked if his analogies were planned or spontaneous, he stated: I think they're pretty much spontaneous, That's the way I teach. I don't like to . . . quite honestly. other than what I am actually teaching, I don’t like to sit down and plan exactly what I'm going to say. I like it to come off the top of my head, and it's more natural thatINSTRUCTIONAL ANALOGIES 195 way unt think the students accept it much more. I think they have a tendency to accept it more that way as opposed to maybe think I'm patronizing them to accept the relationships. Several other teachers expressed they have developed a good pool of analogies during relatively long teaching experiences. This repertoire is employed as needed along with new analogies as they are developed. The general notion among teachers in the study appears to be that very few of the comparisons used were planned in any manner. and the spontaneous nature of those presented helped to keep student interest at a higher level. Itappears that participating teachers like the flexibility of generating analogies on the spot aid tailuring them to specific classroom situations. The most elaborate category of analogies is termed compound analogies. This type of analogy is more complex in that it may use multiple base and target domains and often can take a narrative form in the classroom, Teachers 1 and 6 used more of this type of analogy than the other teachers. Teacher 1 used this compound analogy to describe a portion of mitosis: Let me use this analogy. If I had a big pot of spaghetti, cooked spaghetti, allright, and I held this pot of spaghetti up onit's sideand you were in the back of the room and you were looking at the pot of spagheui, whut would thut spaghetti look like from the back of the room? I would be kind of just a yellowish mass. I don't have any Ragu sauce or meatballs, just spaghetti, and so it's going to be just kind of a yellowish mass. Now, if! started to take this spaghetti and started to spool them up and make lasagna noodles, all of a sudden when you're standing in the back of the room, you'd look at that pot of spaghetti and you'd now be able to start to see what? The lasagna noodles. That's right. Plus, you'd start to be able to see the bottom of tho pan, and so therefore, all of a sudden thace nnndles are up here. And its's not because Casper the ghost came along and whoosh threw in lasagna noodles. It's because ail those little Spagheul-ldes wrapped around each usher. And sv therefore, you have these spools which all this DNA starts coiling around, and then, of course, the spools start coiling around, you know, it starts doubling up, and it ends up the amount of DNA that spools up is what? A thousand times more than the actual chromosome. Teacher 5 used the following compound analogy to explain a portion of the human respiratory system:196 THOMAS M. MASTRILLI How many have cars in hore? How many ride in cars? Its a little hard to figure out now with fuel injection, but what was that thing on top of the engine years ago? There used to be anair filter sitting on top of it. What was tut culled? A carburetor. What did the carburetor do? What does a car runon? Gasoline? Just gasoline? OK, but what mixes with the gasoline? Oil, whoa. In other words, what came into the carburetor? Air. What sits on top of the carburetor? The air cleaner. Well, think of it this way. What we talked about yesterday, the nose, the turbinate bones, the nasal passages, that's our air cleaner. We bring in air just like a carburetor does. I'm having a rough time because a lot of you are not into automobilesyet. You could adjust the carburetor, what they used to call lean or rich, which is allowing the amount of air mixing with the gasoline, We don't have air mixing with gasoline. We have air mixing with the food and the various things we eat and drink for living and they basically go through and process and oxidize for metabolism ofour body, But we must regulate the amount of oxygen that goes through the body itself. Both of these analogies are at a slightly higher level of complexity than either simple/descriptive or spontaneous because they may employ more than one domain for either the base or target domain or both. They also require astudent to think about the relationship morc explicitly and recognize specific attributes that are common to both domains. These type of analogies may be used less frequently in the classroom for several reasons. They generally require higher-level reasoning, they are not as easily generated in a spontaneous fashion, and they require an analogy that can employ more than one base or target domain within the framework of a single comparisons. In essence, it is generally easier to generate a simple analogy with one common feature shared between domains than it is to employ one in which multiple attrihntes are chared hefween the base and target domain. There were only five visual representations used during the data collection period which amuunts wy abuut 3.3% oftdie 151 weal eumparisuis used. These data suggest very few of the analogies used during the study were visual in nature and that very few of the verbal representations were accompanied with visual support materials. ‘here seems little question that visual support of analogies is useful and effective as either a supplement or primary means of instruction (Clement, 1993; Dagher, 1995b; Rigney & Lutz, 1976; Royer & Cable, 1976). This may be a result of the difficulty teachers often encounter in finding accurate visual representations toINSTRUCTIONAL ANALOGIES, 197 support more abstract ideas and concepts; however, this should not be the case when the topic is more concrete in nature. The majority of the analogies used in the study were not accompanied by an explanation of their relational attributes. Explaining the attributes is simplythe practice ofmaking sure students understand how the characteristics of the familiar domain relate to the characteristics of the unfamiliar domain. For example, if a teacher were to use a camera as an analogy for the human eye, they would then go about specifically explaining how each part of the camera corresponded ta a part af the eye. Only seven of the verbal comparisons from a total of 139 (about 5%) were coupled with any type of explanation. These results appear to agree with work done by Tiemey (1988) in which he reported that most tcachcrs in his study scldom accompanied analogical comparisons with any explanation of their attributes. Tierney's study also indicated that teachers seldom employed any form of verification that students understood a given analogy. ‘hey simply assumed the relationship was understood without further explicit explanation of the shared attributes. Brown (1992) stated, "Teachers need to be aware that examples which they find compelling may not be at all illuminating fortheir students" (p. 30). Interview data suggests several of the teachers see nn reasnnto comhine their use of analogies with additional explanations and may even see this as duplicated effort. This is exemplified by the following interview except fiom Teaches 4. Ifyou have to explain it, its like to me, explaining a joke. Ifyou have to explain a joke, it’s not the same. ‘Teacher 2 seems to recognize the disadvantages of not explaining analogies, yet indicates he does not perform this function, When asked if he explains his comparisons, he responded: No. At this level, 1 expect them to be able to make the connections between the analogies. And if they can't, then they don't belong in ihe course. Responding to a question concerning the potential disadvantages of relational comparisons usc, the same teacher states: Sometimes students are not able to see the analogy or they have no connection with the analogy that they're using, so its just as abstract as what the concept is.198 THOMAS M. MASTRILLI The interview responses also provided insights regarding the use of explicit explanations. When questioned about accompanying their analogies with an explanation of the relational attributes, Teachers 3, 7, and 8 responded that they geuvially did eaplain (he relationships they were presenting; however, there is little evidence from class observations that Teacher 3 provided explanations of her relational comparisons on any consistent basis. (She explained one of her eleven analogies.) The same is generally true for Teacher 8 who provided slightly more explanations (three out of 12), Teacher 7 showed no evidence of combining his use of relational comparisons with explanations of common attributes. Five teachers responded that they seldom or never accompanied their use of analogies with explanations. The general implication concerning thie question may be that litte importance is attached to providing explanations of relational attributes to enhance an analogical explanation. Discussion Implications for Teacher Preparation What do we infer from these findings concerning science teacher preparation? At the risk of oversimplification, it may tell science teacher educators that many new professionals, as well as some seasoned science teachers, may not have an adequate knowledge of the functional or cognitive use of analogies in their classroom. The teachers involved in this study are. ostensibly successful educators, yet they appear to operate on an intuitive level regarding analogy use in their classrooms. ‘I his fimdmg implies that these individuals may lack adequate training concerning the appropriate use of instructional analogies. It is also possible that the study participants have not genuinely examined their own content knowledge and epistemological beliefs. The supe: 1g, tha emdy may suggest some of the participants do not have a clear idea of their own personal convictions concerning the nature of science. Gallagher (1991) reported that secondary svicnee Waclwis gumcrally have very little huuwledge about the history and philosophy of science because they have had little opportunity to study these fields. This distorted understanding of the nature of science may provide some insight concerning why the participants of this study had difficulty verbalizing rationale for their use or non-use of analogies. An analogical comparison may be an example of one way in which scientific knowledge is developed and applied. In other words, taking known information and using it as. a comparative vehicle to provide insights ial natura and infreqnent use of analogies dvINSTRUCTIONAL ANALOGIES 199 about related ideas and knowledge is one way in which new scientific knowledge is developed. If these teachers did not receive any formal instruction in the history and philosophy of science, they may view analogical relationships as incidental to factual comtent instead of part of the nature of science itself. Matthews (1994) stated: It is not the case that there is nonmetaphorical science content that then has to be made intelligible by metaphor: analogy andmetaphor are present within science. The use of metaphor in both science and education gives rise to interesting epistemological questions that can be encouraged in teacher training. (p. 205) For those who prepare science teachers, it will be necessary to instruct preservice science teachers how to effectively employ analogies in their everyday ctassroom instruction. ‘his 1s best accomplished as a part ot both methods courses and student teaching experiences. Preservice teachers should be made familiar with Glynn's (1989) Teaching With Analogies (TWA) model that includes the following steps: Introduce the target concept Cue. retrieval af hase (familiar) cancept Identify relevant features of target and base concepts Map similarities between target and base. Indivate where aualugy bicaks dows Draw conclusions ayeesn New teachers shoutd also be familiarized with a model suggested by Zeitoun (1984) termed the General Model of Analogy Teaching (GMAT). This model includes a bit more detail concerning the pedagogical aspects of analogy use and has the following steps: \, Measure the students’ characteristics Avsese prior knowledge about the topic Analyze the learning material of the topic Judge the appropriateness of the analogy Determine the characteristics of ue analugy Select the strategy of teaching and medium of presentation Present the analogy Evaluate the outcomes Revise the stages Pep eRe Both of these models offer an excellent foundation for the appropriate use of analogies in the classroom.200 THOMAS M. MASTRILLI Science teacher educators should also incorporate and model appropriate use of analogies within science methods courses and have their students critically examine why some analogies are of more value than others for a given situation. Group brainstorming sessions are also euggested in order to generate more complex analogies for given topics. Opportunities to use analogies should also be provided during practice teaching sessions and dunngstudentteaching. Prospective teachers also need to practice generating their own analogies for actual topics within their discipline and have peers evaluate them. New professionals should also be encouraged to have their students transfer the knowledge gained in one analogy and try to apply it in a novel situation. Science teacher educators should also train their students tobe proficient at evaluating the prior knowledge of their students as it relates to the use of instructional analogies. Teachers must have the ability to accurately assess through questivuing, prctesting, or other methods, the familiarity their class has with a potential base domain. This skill is critical for the successful use of instructional analogies. After all, it does not matter how effective the analogy is if the students have little or no knowledge of the base domain that anchors the comparison. Many educators assume that because they have used an analogy to explain or further clarify a concept that their job is done. This assumption can lead to confusion. Burns and Okey (1985), as well as Zook and Maier (1993), suggested that teachers should systematically explain the. contained in any analogies used in their instruction. If new professionals are not familiar with this step, there will likely be students who only partially understand or miss the intended relationship completely. As science educators, we cannot afford to assume our students understand the inferred relationships present in instructional analogies. Preservice teachers should also be trained to proactively recognize analogies or portions of analogies that are likely to create confusion for their stidents and modify them before they are used in the classroom, This should help reduce the potential misconceptions often encountered when using analogies inappropriate! Additionally, preservice teachers should ba taught to explicitly explain where analogies break down to their students. Students, especially those who interpret too literally, can often exceed the boundaries of the intended comparison. For example, if one employs whe aualugy of wate flowing in ahose toelectricity flowing ina wire, itis likely that some portion of students will reason that if you cut a hose, water leaks out, and therefore if you cut a wire, electricity “leaks out." A reasonable assumption given a strict interpretation of the analogy. Novice teachers must be able to clearly lariINSTRUCTIONAL ANALOGIES 201 identify for their students where the analogy no longer holds true. Science teacher educators should not present instructional analogies as a strategy without drawbacks. Students need to recognize that the inappropriate use of analogies has the potential to create more problems than it solves. While spontaneous analogies have definite utility within the context of teachable moments, novice teachers should use this type of comparison sparingly and instead thoughtfully plan which analogies will best help them reach their instructional objectives. Additional Interpretations Some of the participants in the study may wut view insuuctivnal analogies as worth the time and effort. None of the participants expressed this perspective directly in the interviews; however, it is naive to ignore this possibility. Part of the reason tor this circumstance may lie in the content knowledge structure of the individual teacher. Wilson, Shulman, and Richert (1985), in an effort to elaborate more on how subject matter is transformed from the knowledge of the teacher to the content of instruction, stated that teachers, "In their struggle to communicate understanding, . . .are forced to pvamine their personal understanding of the content" (p. 112). This may relate to recent work by Dagher (1995a) where analogies were referred to as having a “fluid nature" (p. 269) in that they do not possess a content stravture of Heit own but iustead ake the fonn of the vessel in which they reside. In other words, it should be recognized and engendered in new professionals that analogies are not likely to be directly transferred from the knowledge structure of the teacher to the knowledge structure of the student in the same form but undergo some type of construction unique to the knowledge of the student. Itshould also be recognized that this transformation or reconstitution of knowledge on the student's part may have implications for the type of analogy that would be most effective in a given instructional. situation. The number of analogies used by teachers in this study during the observation period could only be characterized as infrequent. This is consistent with other researcn dealing with the use of analogies (Vagher, 1995a; Peters, 1990; Tierney, 1988). Additionally, there does not appear to be a strong relationship between the teachers’ instructional orientation and the number of analogies they are likely to employ. Examination of the frequency with which a teacher uses analogies is best viewed within the context of individual teaching style and how the comparisons fit within that style. Consideration should also be given to what type of content is being taught. Infrequent use of instructional analogies should not be perceived as202 THOMAS M. MASTRILLI a weakness in an instructor. It should be made clear to preservice teachers that many parameters influence the actual number of analogies a teacher uses in a given instructional period. The number of analogies used in a lesson or instructional unit is not as critical as the appropriateness of the comparison when viewed within the context of the content and the teacher's instructional predisposition. The responses generated by the interview questions, along withclassroom observation data, indicated the teachers generally had little to offer regarding rationale for their use of analogies. Most of the rationale given was lesson specific and did not speak of the larger instructional issues involved with the appropriate use of analogical comparisons. Some spoke of using analogies ty increase student understanding and attention but were unable to explain more specifically why analogies would facilitate explanation of concepts more than other methods. ‘The data collected suggest that analogies were not used as a way to introduce or define a concept but more often as a method to refine and explain specific aspects of larger, more inclusive concepts. This conclusion is consistent with the assertion that analogies may be specific in the areas of learning they support, and therefore, multiple analogies would aid the leaming of more inclusive domains (Duit, 1991; Dupin & Toshna, 1989; Gentner & Gentner, 1983). There were no cases of multiple analogies presented as a means of explaining a single concept or a sct of related concepts. Conclusion The analogies teachers used in their classroom can be a sample of their content representation, pedagogic knowledge, values, and skill in engaging their students. The unique nature of a teacher's analogical representations should be viewed as a natural product of diversity among individuals. It ohould also be noted that the diversity of forms seen in this study ic only suggestive of a much larger range of possibilities that one could encounter in additional classroom observations. Fulure research may focus on We concepural suucunes that tcaclicis intend to generate in their students when using specified analogies. There isalsoaneed to further explore how instructional analogies fit into the larger picture of science teaching and how this role evolves from novice to master practitioners. More investigation is also necessary to determine if specific portions of content within science curriculums influence how teachers employ instructional analogies and if analogies have a culture-specific component as well.INSTRUCTIONAL ANALOGIES 203 ‘The representation of an individual's content knowledge way Le the essence of why teachers use analogies. Teachers are attempting to find the most effective ways of representing their content knowledge. Ananalogical comparison 1s one representation of content knowledge. Understanding these representations and their subsequent reformulation by students remains the essence of teaching with analogies. As science teacher educators, we believe there is little doubt about the potential effectiveness of instructional analogies; however, we cannot simply assume that seasoned science teachers or profeesionale in preparation have the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to employ this valuable instructional strategy. References Brown, D. E. (1992). Using examples and analogies to remediate misconceptions in physics: Factors influencing concpetual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 17-34. Burns, J.C., & Okey, J. R. (1985). Effects of teacher use of analogies on achievement of high school biology students with varying levels of cognitive ability and prior knowledge. Washington, DC: US Department of Education and National Institute of Education. (ERIC document Reproduction Service No, ED 254 431) Campbell, N. A. (1987). Biology (3rd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Benjamin/Cummings. Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1241-1257. Dagher, 7. (1995a). Analysis of analogies used hy science teachers Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 259-270. Dagher, Z. (1995b). Review of studies on the effectiveness of instructional analugive/metaphurs in svicuve clucation, Suienee Bducation, 79(3), 295-312. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649-672. Dupin, J. J., & Joshua, S. (1989). Analogies and "modeling analogies" in teaching: Some examples in basic electricity. Science Education, 73, 207-224. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M Wittenck (Fa }, Handhaak af resoarrh an toaching Grd ed.) (pp. 1192 161). New York: Macmillan. Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary school204 THOMAS M. MASTRILLI ience teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education, 75(1), 121-133. Gentner, D., & Gentner, D. R. (1983). Flowing waters or teeming crowd; Memal models of elecuricity. In D, Geniner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 99-129). Hillsdate, NJ: Erlbaum. Glynn, S. M. (1989). The teaching with analogies model: Explaining concepts in expository texts. In K. D. Muth (Ed.), Chifdren's comprehension of narrative and expository text: Research into practice (pp. 185-204). Newark, DE; International Reading Association. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge. Miller, K. R., & Levine, J. (1993). Biology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Peters, J. M. (1990). A study of subject matter knowledge in the teaching of science, (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1990). University Microfilms International, 9106779. Rigney, J. W., & Lutz, K. A. (1976). Effect of graphic analogies of concepts in chemistry on learning and attitnde Journal af Fducational Psychology, 68, 305-311. Royer, J. M., & Cable, G. W. (1976). Illustrations, analogies, and facilitative wansfer in prose leaning. Journal uf Edacutionul Psyctulogy, 68, 205-209. Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D, A. (1981). Analogical processes in learning. InJ. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 335-359). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tierney, D.S. (1988, March). How teachers explain things: Metaphoric representation of social studies concepts. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Wilson, $. M., Shulman, L.. S., & Richart, F (1087) "150 different ways" of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Caulderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104-122). Philadelphia, PA: Cassell Bducauiun, Zeitoun, H. H. (1984). Teaching scientific analogies: A proposed model. Research in Science and Technology Education, 2, 107-125. Zook, K., & Maier, J. (1993, February), Analogical misconceptions: Effects of instructional and learner variables on the mapping process. Papet presented at the meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Clearwater, FL.