Effects of Analogical Learning Approaches and Presentation Modalities on Ninth Graders’ Learning Outcome and Eye Movements: a Preliminary Study
Tóm tắt
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.
Tài liệu tham khảo
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474212076.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Issing, L. J. (1990). Learning from pictorial analogies. Eur J Psychol Educ, 5(4), 489–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173134.
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.
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.
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.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Paivio, A. (1975). Perceptual comparisons through the mind’s eye. Mem Cogn, 6(3), 635–647. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198229.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: a dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195066661.001.0001.
Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: retrospect and current status. Can J Psychol, 45(3), 255–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084295.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A. (1989). Similarity and analogical reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511529863.
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.
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.
Zeitoun, H. H. (1984). Teaching scientific analogies: a proposed model. Res Sci Technol Educ, 2(2), 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514840020203.