JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 40, NO. 5, PP. 443–463 (2003)

Social Interaction and the Use of Analogy: An Analysis of Preservice Teachers’Talk during Physics Inquiry Lessons

Randy K. Yerrick,1 Elizabeth Doster,2 Jeffrey S. Nugent,2

Helen M. Parke,2 Frank E. Crawley2

1School of Education, North Education Building #90, San Diego State University,

San Diego, California 92182

2East Carolina University, Flanagan Hall, Greenville, North Carolina 22858

Received 6 September 2002; Accepted 22 October 2002

Abstract: Analogies have been argued to be central in the process of establishing conceptual growth,

making overt connections and carryover into an intended cognitive domain, and providing a generative

venue for developing conceptual understanding inherent in constructivist learning. However, students’

specific uses of analogies for constructing arguments are not well understood. Specifically, the results of

preservice teachers’ knowledge gains are not widely studied. Although we would hope that engaging

preservice science teachers in exemplary lessons would assist them in using and generating analogies more

expertly, it is not clear whether or how such curricula would affect their learning or teaching. This study

presents an existence proof of how preservice science teachers used analogies embedded in their course

materials Physics by Inquiry. This fine-grained analysis of small group discourse revealed three distinct

roles of analogies including the development of: (a) cognitive process skills, (b) scientific conceptual

understanding, and (c) social contexts for problem solving. Results suggest that preservice teachers tend to

overgeneralize the analogies inserted by curriculum materials, map irrelevant features of analogies into

collaborative problem solving, and generate personal analogies, which counter scientific concept develop-

ment. Although the authors agree with the importance of collaborative problem solving and the insertion of

analogies for preservice teachers’ conceptual development, we believe much more needs to be understood

before teachers can be expected to construct and sustain effective learning environments that rely on using

analogies expertly. Implications for teacher preparation are also discussed. � 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

J Res Sci Teach 40: 443–463, 2003

Scientific Arguments in Preservice Teacher Preparation

As science teacher educators we are interested in sharing with our teacher candidates

constructivist notions of learning and teaching. The construction of knowledge is contingent on

Correspondence to: R.K. Yerrick; E-mail: ryerrick@mail.sdsu.edu

DOI 10.1002/tea.10084

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

� 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

the shared values and accepted methods of interaction in a given community. This notion of

knowledge construction is an integral part of the educational and psychological underpinnings of

current reform-based teacher recommendations. Knowledge construction can be characterized

as individual and collective, explicit and tacit, and cognitive and social. Our work has been

influenced by the body of research explicating the nature of scientific discourse (Latour &

Woolgar, 1986; Lemke, 1990; Traweek, 1988) as well as research that describes classroom

discourse, teacher beliefs, and interpretations students formulate about teaching and learning

before their enrollment in university teacher education (Brickhouse & Bodner, 1992; Duschl &

Wright, 1989; Hodson, 1993; Lantz & Kass, 1987; Lederman, 1992, 1995; Lortie, 1975). From

these two perspectives we propose to help science teacher candidates come to understand certain

norms of scientific discourse (e.g., the formulation of rational argumentation, the use of evidence

and backing), engage them in authentic problem settings (Schon, 1979), and assist students in the

practice of higher-order process skills (Roth, 1993; Roth & Roychoudhury, 1993; Hammer, 1995;

Padilla, 1991). By facilitating collaborative problem solving through exemplary curricula we also

aim to assist prospective teachers in their interpretation of science education reform

recommendations [American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 1989;

National Research Council (NRC), 1996] that serve to guide future teacher evaluation and

research.

A large part of scientists’ work is the formulation of arguments and theoretical frameworks.

Many researchers have identified key components of these frameworks as emerging through

specific discourse norms and artifacts shared by the community.

Researchers argue that scientific communities have developed cogent analogies as ways to

gauge much of their native talk, work, and socialization of new members (Clement, 1989, 1993;

Lemke, 1990; Traweek, 1988). Scientists’ use of analogies in their reasoning has been well

documented (Glynn, Doster, & Law, 1997; Harre, 1961; Hesse, 1966; Nersessian, 1984).

However, researchers suggest that content experts such as scientists use analogies, metaphors, and

figures of speech in different ways than do students. One explanation for the discrepancy between

novice and expert use of analogies is the vast difference in the common ground they share to view

the world. For example, scientists collectively operate within a community that necessarily must

agree on a connected set of canonical constructs useful for explaining and predicting new events.

By contrast, novices communicate in groups using commonsense forms of rationality that are

often typified by a fragmented and disjunct set of immediate principles that may or may not be

useful in describing future events.

Analogies as Intellectual and Social Tools for Sense Making

Recent literature has focused on the use of analogies as a tool for constructing classroom

knowledge. Some researchers (Clement, 1988; Glynn, 1994; Schon, 1979) have suggested that

analogies are useful for helping students make comparisons between personal knowledge and

alternative perspectives, whereas others have extended this claim toward a more metacognitive

examination of the consistency and refinement of personal understanding (Wong, 1993).

Researchers have also argued the usefulness of analogies for the various purposes of establishing

conceptual growth, providing a generative venue for developing conceptual understanding

inherent in constructivist learning (Wong, 1993), and performing a dynamic role in making overt

connections and carryover into an intended cognitive domain (Gentner, 1983; Gick & Holyoak,

1983; Wong, 1993).

There has been a concerted effort to write curricula with the intention of immersing students

into problem-rich spaces and providing more scientific analogies to guide novices in the

444 YERRICK ET AL.

comparisons of other ways of making sense of available evidence (Camp et al., 1994; McDermott

et al., 1996; Steinberg, 1992). Throughout these exemplary curricula, opportunities are woven

for students to engage in scientific process skills. Science concepts and inserted analogies are

objects of student testing, application, and scrutiny as students formulate hypotheses, design

data collection, identify pertinent variables and interpret, transform, and analyze data—process

skills that are promoted by several reform documents (AAAS, 1989, 1993; NRC, 1996).

Conceptual change curricula integrate efforts to elicit students’ experiences and prior knowledge

and to engage students in authentic applications of expert representations. Studies confirm that

process skills need not be taught as separate entities in as much as higher-order process skills

develop in their sophistication among students in a variety of settings (Hammer, 1995; Roth,

1993).

There is much uncertainty surrounding effective inquiry teaching. Indeed, the challenge of

controlling and orchestrating cognitive growth has been a source of much consternation for

curricula authors. Roth (1993) argued that cognitive skills are not context independent or easily

transferable. Rather, cognitive skills often are bound to the context in which they are developed

and practiced. Other researchers have found that guided-inquiry lessons represent cogent

activities and rational scientific arguments; research reveals that students engaging in these

activities often maintain their own sense making for reasons other than rationality (Eichinger et al.,

1991; Richmond & Striley, 1996; Roth, 1994, 1995; Vellom, 1993). One weakness the cognitive

study of analogies has revealed is the limited examination of the social and cognitive uses of

analogies as separate purposes. The reality of classrooms requires that teachers consider complex

group interactions, including those in which they are prominent players, to make sense of their

actions as a learner and a teacher.

Purpose of Study

Recognizing that preservice teachers construct their own understanding of science, we sought

to understand how preservice teachers interpreted curricular materials that promoted both explicit

use of analogies for understanding physical science and that facilitated practice of process skills in

a guided inquiry environment. We explored the use of analogies in naturalistic settings. Given the

uncertainty of personal and collective sense making and the ordered, seemingly rigid structure of

some curricula, we sought to examine the possibilities for how students might use analogies and

process skills in collaborative problem-solving sessions. In doing so we produced an existence

proof to explicate some of the uses of analogies, knowing that students of this background will not

completely embrace nor effectively use analogies in their normal discourse. To this end we asked:

How do preservice science teachers use and interpret analogies embedded in collaborative inquiry

physics activities?

Methods

Instruction

Data for the study were gathered in a physical science course for preservice teachers.

Classroom structure and interactions were organized around collaborative group problem solving,

journal writing, and guided inquiry. Students commonly worked in groups of 3 or 4 to conduct

investigations, gather evidence, and construct models to help them explain the functioning of

simple electric circuits involving bulbs, wires, and batteries. The majority of class time was

SOCIAL INTERACTION AND USE OF ANALOGY 445

devoted to small-group work in which students explored and discussed their own understandings

of scientific concepts with little direct input from the instructor. Traditional instructional strategies

such as lecturing and teacher-led demonstrations were largely absent from the class interactions

that we observed. There were, in contrast, a number of whole-class discussions initiated by the

instructor that were concerned with providing a rationale and justification for the class structure.

The final component structuring the course, guided inquiry, was influenced by at least three

distinct but connected factors: the programmed course materials that served as the lens to focus

student inquiry, collaborative group interactions, and both individual and group discussions with

the instructor.

Physics by Inquiry (PBI), the instructional materials for the laboratory-based investigations,

were developed by Lillian McDermott and the Physics Education Group (1988) at the University

of Washington. These materials consisted of a series of carefully designed modules to assist

students in developing a sound understanding of basic concepts of electricity, as well as the

scientific reasoning skills needed to apply these concepts to the everyday world. Working in small

collaborative groups, students conducted investigations and used their observations as evidence

for constructing explanations and models for electric phenomena. The basic design of each section

began with experiments, followed by exercises directly related to and expanding on the

experiments, and finally the resolution of a hypothetical dispute between two students. Intentional

gaps were designed into the modules to encourage students to develop the capacity to apply the

concepts learned in a particular context to a novel situation. Although developing the capacity to

apply learned concepts to novel situations is a core notion in the construction of scientific

knowledge, this process is not often promoted by traditional science textbooks. However, the fact

that a primary feature of PBI is intended to encourage students to apply their knowledge in

multiple settings reveals the reasons for its selection and use.

Data Collection

Three professors and one graduate student served as primary researchers for the study.

Researcher roles within the class were varied, although all fell along Patton’s (1990) continuum of

possible roles for the participant-observer. The graduate student researcher had an additional

appointment as a bona fide member of the class, and as such his role at the study site was largely

participatory. We did not attempt to conceal his identity as a researcher: Other members of the

class were informed of his status at the beginning of the semester. The remaining researchers

assumed more detached roles, one as a complete observer and the other as a primary observer who

occasionally participated in small-group discussion.

Primary data sources included nearly 16 hours of videotaped class meetings of both large- and

small-group interactions, field notes, student journals, and researcher journals. Data sources were

gathered and organized into a research catalog to facilitate data analysis. Student journals and field

notes were chronologically correlated to each videotape. A list of general open-ended questions

regarding students’ participation and investigation within the group guided the initial inquiry.

These correlations served not only as sequential markers but also as important sources for

comparative analysis of the videotaped episodes. Copies of daily researcher journal entries were

also included in the research catalog. Our data collection was focused on understanding what

sense the group members were making of the activities, what prior knowledge influenced their

thinking, and what reasons they provided for thinking in the ways that they did.

In summary, the research catalog consisted of the videotape index documents, copies of

student journal entries for that day, our own notes and comments, and references to the supporting

materials the students happened to be working with on that particular day.

446 YERRICK ET AL.

Data Analysis

We viewed each video as soon as possible after taping and constructed an initial catalog

document to index each videotape using a software package called CVideo. The initial tape

viewing involved indexing or tagging real-time markers of the tape to which we added descriptive

text of the interaction to facilitate later viewing. These documents with tagged times and

descriptive text were constructed for each tape and became the central component of a research

catalog, which was maintained for each tape. Given the recent focus on understanding how student

argumentation influences learning (Eichinger, 1993; Eichinger & Anderson, 1991; Gil-Perez &

Carrascosa-Alis, 1994; Kuhn, 1993), we were especially interested in how the group worked

through the hypothetical debate sections of the PBI materials and the reasons they provided for

agreement or disagreement.

The initial index documents served as an organized record of the data as well as a research tool

to facilitate later viewing and analysis of the tapes. After construction of all the initial documents

for each tape was complete, the research team returned to the tapes to review each of them for

possible emerging patterns in group interactions and problem-solving strategies. Members of the

research team analyzed tapes on an individual and group basis with the team meeting for

discussion at least once a week. Data analysis continued for several months. From the original

index documents we constructed a primary analysis of each tape that included more in-depth

descriptions of group interactions as well as partial transcriptions of student dialogues. The

collection of each analysis document then combined to form a more focused picture of the video

data. The complete dialogue from these portions were transcribed verbatim for further analysis.

During the secondary analysis of the data, the collection of key classroom episodes were reviewed

again for the purposes of identifying detailed patterns and for comparative analysis of problem-

solving strategies and group interactions. Emergent patterns and themes from the primary analysis

served as a guiding framework for the secondary analysis of data. The construction and reflection

entries provided researchers with critical insight into how the students were making sense of the

learning tasks.

In subsequent sections, we provide verbatim transcripts and the researchers’ analysis of data

vignettes. Through the analysis of the discussions that occurred within the key collaborative

group, our main concerns are to reveal the tacit ways in which talking science (Gallas, 1995)

developed within the group and to consider how group members supported the learning that

occurred.

Results

Our results focus on the interplay of three aspects that shape the use of analogies in solving

scientific problems in collaborative groups: (a) the role of analogies in learners’ conceptual

understandings of learners, (b) the inquiry processes supported and confounded by students’ use of

analogies, and (c) the social fabric of collaborative settings and its effect on personal and scientific

analogies. Each of these were found to be brought to the problem-solving foreground at different

junctures, and at times it was difficult to determine which of these three aspects was ultimately the

driving force behind the constructed meaning of the learning tasks. The use of analogies in

collaborative work often shaped the students’ individual and collective interpretation of the

instructional intent of PBI, discussion of available evidence gathered from PBI activities,

tangential experimentation unintended by the PBI text, and, subsequently, the negotiated next

course of action as students worked through their activities. Our goal is to provide an existence

proof for the flexible and nonrational approaches that students employ with exemplary curricula in

SOCIAL INTERACTION AND USE OF ANALOGY 447

collaborative problem-solving settings. We report in the following sections attributes that best

define the use of analogies of students we observed: (a) students’ opportunity to challenge beliefs

through the use of analogies, (b) students’ overgeneralization of analogies inserted by curricular

materials, (c) students’ mapping irrelevant features onto analogies, and (d) students’ generation of

personal theories elevated to the role of analogy and employed for a variety of purposes.

The excerpts from classroom dialogue we report stand in sharp contrast to traditionally

structured classroom discourse patterns. For the most part, student discussions took place with

limited direction and input from the instructor. Whenever possible, we use a chronological report

of these excerpts so that the reader may have a better sense of the evolving nature of

experimentation and social interactions as we recorded this small group working together for 6

weeks (18 hours) of instruction.

Assertion 1: Curricular Insertion of Analogy Provided Challenges for Personal Beliefs

and an Authentic Backdrop for Practicing Inquiry Process Skills

The insertion of appropriate analogies for limiting ambiguity and addressing naive

interpretations of evidence is a common theme of many research-driven curricular documents.

Analogies serve a primary function in promoting conceptual development of core scientific ideas

as well as promoting the practice of process skills representative of scientific activity. In our results

the most efficient student use of analogies was the curricular insertion of an appropriate analogy or

model for the purpose of focusing student learning. Such activities are carefully structured to

involve students in gathering discrepant data, present students with appropriate analogies that

contrast commonsense understandings, and facilitate students’ functional use of these analogies

by explaining and predicting future events using the analogies. The PBI text asks

Does the observation suggest that the flow in an electric circuit is one way (e.g., from the

battery to the bulb) or round trip (e.g., from the battery to bulb and back again through the

battery)? Explain.

What does your answer above suggest is a major difference between the flow in an electric

circuit and the flow of water in a river? (McDermott, 1996, pp. 390)

In the following excerpts, students who had been studying electricity were asked to explain

whether electricity flows in one or two directions within the circuit. The curricular insertion of the

analogy of river flow promoted the engagement in fundamental processes of scientific inquiry.

Having completed part of their investigations, students began negotiating what counted as

evidence, debating multiple points of view, and constructing models to explain scientific

phenomena related to simple electric circuits. For example, students were jointly deciding what

kinds of common experiences can be used to talk about flow and how relevant each of the pieces of

evidence are to the problem at hand.

Chris: [Reading aloud] In what way does the flow of electric current differ from the water

in the river? [To the group] Is it the actual electron moving? Is it the areas of

impulse moving?

Mike: I think the river is completely different.

Curt: Yeah, I do, too.

Mike: I think it might be compared to maybe a wave in the ocean or something. Where a

wave is different water and it isn’t the same water stretched across the ocean or

something. I think that is a better analogy there.

448 YERRICK ET AL.

Chris: That’s a good point. That’s kind of what I was saying. Are they looking at a river

like from Point A to Point B and only the difference would be the mass? Or are they

looking at an electron going from . . . //Mike: That’s what it sounds like to me. They’re wanting us to say there is one electron

moving here. Now is that what you get from that question?

Jeff: Yeah, I think they’re linking up that idea, but I am trying to follow the first question

about whether it is asking about one way and a river that goes around. Or is it about

a river flows out into a lake and stops and then goes back into the river again?

That’s how I am understanding the question.

Chris: Hmmm.

Chris: So if you compared it that way, then you’re not thinking that they’re similar in any

way. Because when the river flows on, it doesn’t return to the source except in the

evaporation phase. Where electrons flow atom per atom, add an electron moving

down a path. They may be similar in that manner. I think that you’re right [Mike]. I

think they’re talking about a river that goes one way.

Mike: I don’t understand this one-way thing. I think that they’re trying to get us . . . //Chris: The concept let’s say the water flows one way. Let’s say that what he says is

true, the water flows down over a waterfall and returns back to its source. I think

that . . . //Mike: Is that the way it is?

Chris: I think that is the concept they are looking for here and we have to say, ‘‘No, it’s

not.’’ The water goes on and on and on and it runs into the ocean and the ocean runs

into something else and the only way we get it back is through a different system.

Mike: Why is it dissimilar? Is it because it’s evaporating . . . ?

It is clear students are using a curriculum-generated analogy and not a personal analogy as

students refer to the author’s intended use in the third-person ‘‘they’’ (10, 24, 26). At this stage in

the investigation students are interpreting the intentions of the author and actively negotiating the

meaning of the author’s voice and purpose. The questions raised about the use of the inserted

analogy are in part an exercise in exploring the social parameters of the text and manipulatives

students were given. After all, in their minds, students are acting within a social context of learning

physics in a university classroom rich with meaning and hidden curricula implied in grading

procedures and correct answers. Questions like these are anticipated because inquiry-based

approaches are not common experiences for preservice elementary science teachers. Prospective

elementary science teachers are not encouraged or regularly provided with opportunities to

practice science in ways that promote experimental design, hypothesis generation, or individual

interpretation, and these students believed it was important that they accurately interpret the text

and their task within this social context. Mike’s and Jeff’s challenges serve to clarify the group’s

contextual use of the analogy (5, 8, 16–18) and to help to bound the appropriateness of the group’s

use with the intentions of the author and the usefulness of the analogy in synthesizing available

evidence.

In addition to the general inquiry processes implicit in this PBI task and the evolving social

context, the analogy promoted the insertion of students’ prior experience. The inserted analogy

provided a venue for inserting individual conceptions of flow for both water and electricity. During

the process of interpretation students made their conceptual understanding more explicit to one

another through a range of experiences and personal constructions activated by the inserted

analogy. Analysis of student arguments revealed several conceptions of current flow, including

� current as a river flowing in one direction

� current as conserved as in the case of the water cycle conserving energy and Mikeer

SOCIAL INTERACTION AND USE OF ANALOGY 449

� current driven by forces represented as waterfalls and flowing rivers

� current as an impulse wave phenomenon versus individual charge migration

� current altered by the shape of the conduit as in the case of a hose and water pressure, and

� current represented by charges traveling on highways (both one-way and divided

highways).

These personal constructions arose spontaneously from arguments concerning both the com-

monly observed phenomena as well as the intention of the curricula. Student contributions freely

moved from discussions of how the electrical charge migrated in the wire to discussions of what

the author expected students to know at their stage of the activities. Flipping forward and

backward through the curricula and making comments such as ‘‘So what do we write in this

space?’’ revealed a complex, nonlinear kind of discourse in which students continually juggled

conceptual versus contextual parameters.

The small-group collaborations generated many interpretations and provided a venue for

negotiating ways of deciding what counts. However, not all ideas hold equal predictive power in

science. Therein lies a tension for having students generate from their own personal knowledge

and observation to arrive at the intended goal conception. Coupled with the PBI goal of soliciting

contrary private beliefs is the confrontation of less useful ideas through data collection and theory

development. During one of the small-group interactions Chris led many rounds of brief debates

surrounding the actual motion of electrons in comparison to river water motion. After all

members’ personal interpretations had been voiced, the group appeared to agree on a use of the

analogy that was not only compatible with the author’s use, but brought them to the desired

outcome of concluding that a circuit is a round trip flow of charge.

Mike: What is a round trip, anyway? I don’t understand. Is it . . .Jeff: Right. So is the flow of the river similar or dissimilar to the flow of the circuit?

Frank: Right cause if you say it’s one way then you say that the battery is . . .Chris: You’re saying it goes off in the distance and it never goes back to the battery. That’s

what we’re saying in essence.

Jeff: That would be a one-way flow.

Chris: Yes one way. A round trip would be it goes out into the circuit and comes . . . //

Frank: I don’t think . . .Chris: // . . . back to the battery.

Frank: I don’t think that they’re talking about groundwater and that sort of thing. With

precipitation and the water cycle and the river flowing and that sort of thing.

Chris: No I think they’re probably . . . it goes on forever [pause] . . .Unless indeed we’re

talking does it mean it takes kind of like what we we’re taking about [Mike]

physically, like we’re talking about an atom or electron moving down a line.

Jeff: Is it a round trip? Is that what you guys are arguing for?

Mike: Is it an electric circuit?

Jeff: Yeah. Electric.

Mike: I think so.

Frank: I think it’s one way, but it’s meeting one way [gestures hands from both ends of the

battery meeting in the middle at the bulb].

Jeff: I think where you get to Section 2.3 where the students are where they’re arguing

about that . . . .We’re asked to resolve the dispute between two students, I think

that’s the place where we resolve the point that we’re at right now.

The power of a single analogy for becoming a conduit for generating student discussion is

evident in this interaction despite the accurateness of students’ prior beliefs. There is one

450 YERRICK ET AL.

exception to this group consensus during the use of the flow analogy. Frank harbored what

researchers (Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; Ball, McDiarmid, & Anderson, 1989; McDermott, 1996)

clearly documented as a common naive conception about the flow of electrical charge and the

production of light. Frank supported the position that flow is unidirectional, but through his

objections and hand gestures (57–59) revealed that he believed that charges flow from both ends of

the battery and meet at the bulb to produce light.

The PBI authors were well aware of this reasoning and thoughtfully built experiences into

subsequent activities to challenge students’ notions. The group members continued to synthesize

past activities and discussions to bolster their claim that electrical charge did in fact circulate in a

round trip, one-way path of flow out one end of the battery, through the bulb and back to the other

end of the battery. Only Frank appeared to maintain an alternative belief about the flow, conceding

that flow was one way but from both ends of the battery. Although there is little direct evidence

available to contradict Frank’s interpretation, conservation laws and the usefulness of other

interpretations are intended to replace Frank’s view. However, in the interest of the emotional

comfort of the group, the intention of the curriculum was subverted for a more consensual

yet artificial agreement. Jeff attempted make the activity go more smoothly but at the same

time missed the opportunity to confront the naive notion that current flows from both ends of the

battery.

It is evident that the social context of the group compromised the intended opportunity to

critically examine Frank’s naive conception of the flow analogy as well as other personal

constructions. In some ways Frank was allowed to believe he was correct in that his group

members chose to postpone or squelch argument selectively. Without an expert to draw attention

to imperative nuances in inquiry processes, scaffold alternative discourse, and redirect student

efforts, students will negotiate their own uses of curricula for their shared purposes. These

examples represent a challenge to curricula writers aiming for a singular conceptual outcome.

Some authors have even argued that inappropriate usage of analogies does more harm than good

and may even lead students to formulate somewhat complex misconceptions (Duit, 1991; Gilbert,

1989; Thagard, 1992). When students engage in unsupervised use of analogies in logical

reasoning, the danger of forming misconceptions arises as ideas are overgeneralized and

connections are drawn among noncorresponding features of the concepts (Glynn, 1994).

Assertion 2: Students’ Engagement in Curricula Separate from

Their Instructor’s Guidance Allowed Opportunities to Adapt Analogies Incorrectly

and Subvert Synthesis and Disagreement during Collaborative Work

Students used the analogies presented inPBI in a variety of ways and for a variety of purposes.

Inserted analogies such as flow were instrumental in expanding students’ process skill expertise.

Routinely students would engage in a cycle of posing hypotheses, designing data collection

procedures, and discussing their individual interpretations while inserting and reevaluating their

use of analogies such as flow. Less time was spent daily in reading and interpreting instructions and

more time was spent on performing generating experiments—some of which lay outside of the

intended focus of PBI—evidence of the level of engagement and student interest generated by the

inquiry setting.

Despite the provision of focus for problem solving and data synthesis, analogies often

provided students with opportunities to distort the intention of the inserted analogies. This

occurred in at least two different ways: (a) Students transferred other features onto analogy that

rendered it inappropriate to the desired concept, and (b) students overgeneralized the use of

analogies. These deviations from the intended use of analogies were primarily observed when the

SOCIAL INTERACTION AND USE OF ANALOGY 451

group was functioning in small collaborative (4 members) and not whole-class discussions

following the hypotheses generation and data collection surrounding their investigations with

electrical circuits.

During several small-group discussions analogies that had been inserted in prior lessons

would reemerge and spiral into a host of other kinds of representations of the initial, more

simplified analogy. The role of the analogy in group discussion served as an aggregating point for a

variety of personal experiences, only some of which maintained the conceptual integrity of the

inquiry. For example, while investigating the heat of the wire and resistors at different points of

the circuit, students were asked to debate the notion of conservation of current and the origin of the

heat and light energy observed leaving the circuit. In just a few short minutes the students went

from introducing the original flow analogy to adding the features of water speed, conduit diameter,

and direction of charges. Although these are important attributes, their introduction launched the

group into comparisons of automobiles as charges, fumes or emissions as light, and blood

converting food to energy. In their fervor to assimilate experiences and observations into new

schema, students often added features to analogies that promoted misconceptions. The freedom

to adapt analogies to personally significant events often led to misuse of the analogy and the

promotion of misconceptions in unrelated content areas (e.g., blood flow does not convert food

into energy). Instead of analogies serving continually to refine and converge experiences with

canonical scientific knowledge, analogies were just as likely to result in discussion of

misconceptions than expert conceptions as students found it important, even necessary, to insert

other ways of speaking about current that the lesson structure did not supply.

Another example of misuse of the intended analogy was seen in students’ tendencies to

overgeneralize the usefulness and appropriateness for interpreting experiments. Analogies

supplied a necessary framework for conceptual development for co-constructing common

understanding of rather complex scientific representations. The utility of the flow analogy requires

the juxtaposition of opposing models against the synthesis of data—data that have implied

significance and do not supply direct proof or refutation of hypotheses. In the following excerpt,

Frank attempted to promote his naive model for the third time, arguing current flowed from both

ends of the battery. The focus of the intended task was to use the heat given off by the wire as

evidence of what current is and how it flowed within the wire. Frank’s notion is a commonly held

naive conception that PBI curricular authors anticipated—hence their inclusion of structured

investigations of the wire’s induced magnetic fields, conservation of the wire’s mass and charge,

and polarity of devices in circuits. Instead of debating Frank’s conception using any of these ideas

or data, the group sidestepped Frank’s contribution yet another time through Chris’s over-

generalizing flow as through a garden hose to explain why the wire heated up.

Frank: It’s about like a highway; everybody is going to start at one place but some people

are going to get off at the exits . . . at the light bulb you’ll lose some, you lose some

through the heat of the bulb, you lose some through the heat of the wire, you

lose some through the heat of the battery . . . but eventually some of it gets around

to the end . . . I’m not sure how it completes the circuit . . . so the other stuff can get

back out the other end.

Mike: I think it compares to like a wave in the ocean because a wave is different water

stretching across the ocean, I think that’s a little better analogy there.

Jeff: So is it a round trip?

Mike: I think so.

Frank: I say it’s one way but that it’s meeting in the middle that causes the electric[ity].

The positive and the negative are meeting and that forms the electricity.

452 YERRICK ET AL.

Mike: So you’re saying that something is traveling this way and at the same time

something is coming out here traveling this way and then they meet? So there is no

return . . . it’s one-way?

Frank: No return at all.

Curt: What would happen if I assumed I had a pump here, not a battery a pump; I had a

hose and connected the hose together, and right here I put some sort of spinning

wheel . . .maybe because the element here has got more resistance . . . that’s the

reason it’s getting hot because it slowed something down . . . but let’s say for

instance I put a spinning wheel in the middle. Is that water not going to come back

here to be pumped? And doesn’t the system cause it to have the same pressure even

after the middle?

Mike: You think it has the same pressure here after it’s turned the wheel?

Curt: Yeah, because of the size of the tube, and I’m looking at the battery as a water

pump it provides the force it needs to shoot that thing out through the system.

Mike: So the energy coming through this wire is the same as energy coming through this

wire?

Chris: Just slower because these two restricters are slowing it down.

Mike: I understand what you’re saying; I’m just having trouble comprehending it. I just

have this picture of the flow of current as being the power source.

Chris: Compare this to a highway: Nobody can enter or exit; you come in one side you got

to go out the other side. The lights may slow them down, but they stay on the

highway.

Mike: But something is leaving that highway in the form of light energy you know . . .Chris: We’re calling it something else; in this case let’s call the cars current . . .

[Discussion continued for 10 minutes as Frank watched silently.]

Frank inserted his personal highway model as another equally valid tool for explaining

available evidence connecting current flow and the ways that cars travel on a highway (74–80).

Frank clarified to others that his notion of positive/negative charge flow complemented his

highway analogy. It seemed reasonable to Frank that adding opposite charges will somehow

produce the energy seen as light emerging from the filament. Frank’s conception contrasted the

intended concept accepted by the other group members that moving negative charges lose their

kinetic energy as it is transformed into light and heat by the filament. The group members,

however, did not capitalize on the opportunity to contrast these conceptions but instead avoided

debating Frank’s conception although the highway model of flow in two directions supported both

models in the creation of light in a circuit.

How could the authentic engagement in inquiry process skills and solicitation of conflicting

conceptions be subverted and not result in PBI’s intended debate? Our answer was found

repeatedly in the social dynamics of the group. Many researchers studied the members’ roles in

collaborative problem solving (Eichenger, 1993; Vellom, Anderson, & Palincsar, 1993; Roth,

1995) and found that agendas within the group superceded intentions of curricular tasks. In the

case of our 4-member collaborative group, progress through the tasks ofPBIwas perceived as slow

by group members because they often encountered impasses to consensus. Such impasses were

often precipitated by social agendas at work within the group rather than the nature of the

discrepant data or concepts themselves. For example, Chris, a dominant member, often controlled

the direction of discussions toward his own unique synthesis. Chris, an older student who entered

into the teaching ranks laterally, was a talkative and charismatic student able to lobby support for

his ideas for reasons other than their rationality. Sometimes Chris would overgeneralize the

intended meaning of analogies to demonstrate his mastery or to avoid criticism of his own

SOCIAL INTERACTION AND USE OF ANALOGY 453

adaptations. One of the tactics Chris invoked was the extrapolation of a single analogy for

generalizing common experiences he wanted to promote. Chris repeatedly demonstrated his savvy

in maintaining the focus on his own conceptions, sometimes even inserting incorrect but scientific-

sounding explanations like Bernoulli’s principle and Newton’s laws.

The fallout of one or two individuals’ control over group discussion topics was most evident in

student journals’ daily reflections on the learning experience. Frank demonstrated in his journal

the differences between outer compliance and inner appropriation of the tasks. Frank did not favor

working in this group though two of his partners evaluated learning in this way positively. In part

Frank’s reservations were attributed to the uncertainty of the task and partly because of the

exclusion of his own ideas. In his daily journal Frank reflected on the difficulties of being asked to

construct knowledge that he thought was better to receive first. Frank also extended his frustrations

into predictions of the usefulness of these inquiry investigations in his plans for future teaching.

I am ready to suspend the problem because I am tired of talking about it. I don’t think it is

that big of a deal. As far as real-life experience, as long as the light works and turns on, I’m

happy . . .We seem to go off on tangents on specific experiments . . . I won’t do this with my

own students. We don’t even know what the words mean. We’re struggling just to get that

first . . . It’s hard for me. I wouldn’t use the same approach with my students because I feel

like we need some background knowledge before we jump into it and we don’t have it. I

don’t remember doing it in elementary school and I feel like an elementary student

learning this for the first time myself.

Clearly Frank perceived working through personal and collective sense making in this way as

too frustrating and uncertain. Frank never acquired the means to generate tests for emerging ideas

or influence his group’s means to prove or promote different conceptions. Further analysis of

Frank’s journal revealed that he held traditional views of teaching and how children learn. Frank

had come to expect that his teachers would regularly disseminate answers coupled with positive

reinforcement for recitation of laws and observable facts. Frank also thought that it was wrong and

harmful to allow students to define unpredictable paths of inquiry—designing their own tests for

emerging questions—or to flounder in speculation without immediate closure.

After this third exclusion of his idea, Frank chose simply not to engage in subsequent

discussions for several class meetings, deliberately weighing his contributions. Several have

argued that teachers’ beliefs drive their interpretations of learning experiences and Frank’s case is

further proof that preservice majors’ experiences are profoundly influenced by beliefs they bring

to teacher education courses and that Lortie’s (1975) socialization process occurs in teachers

during their K–12 experiences as students. If preservice candidates believe that science is a set of

facts to be acquired through traditional or hands-on methods, they will likely rate the experience of

inquiry promoted by materials such asPBI as not useful for promoting understanding, and perhaps

even harmful in their preparation as teachers.

Assertion 3: Students’ Personal Theories Often Functioned as Analogies Given Equal

or Greater Weight to Inserted Analogies during Collaborative Inquiry

Over the course of data collection, small groups were observed to engage in design and

analysis tasks longer and more expertly used process skills to resolve interpretive discrepancies as

well as problem generation. Our findings coincide with those of other researchers (Roth, 1993,

1994) that the learning curve for participation in collaborative inquiry settings is initially steep but

results in fundamental shifts in the rules of group discourse and the tasks they design and engage

454 YERRICK ET AL.

in. However, their demonstrated increased proficiency and resultant confidence sometimes led

them to insert their own personal theories in place of those offered by the curriculum. We

distinguish the insertion of a personal analogy from the use of intended analogies on the basis of

the explicit connection to present or past curricular artifacts. We also discriminate between the

insertion of personal experience versus the insertion of personal theories by the explanatory power

associated with its use. In short, if a student introduces an event or model intended to synthesize

observed data or promote a revised, cogent explanation that has not been introduced by the

curricula, he or she has introduced a personal theory. The following excerpt demarcates each by

way of example.

Curt: Right here for some reason they are at maximum . . . letting off all their energy

because of the restriction and speed and at this section here they have lost their

energy.

Jeff: Where did you get that idea from?

Curt: Spaceships. Spaceships when they hit their highest resistance they start glowing.

Jeff: Okay, now what’s going fast?

Curt: The electrons.

Mike: Its heating at different speeds at different places for some reason I don’t

know . . .when it gets out here it gets to pick up speed or energy until it gets to this

point where the air then maybe absorbs the heat and it cools until it gets to the

negative terminal.

Curt: Its just like a kid in the front yard; you got a gate and it’s gonna slow him down

until he opens it . . . if you put a light bulb in there that’s the gate which slows down

things and meters them. They have to come through at a certain rate . . . they are

squeezed through that resistance, but if I shut this it’s just like opening the gate; the

kid can run continuously right straight out.

In this example we observe both the insertion of personal experience and theory. Students are

engaged in analyzing temperature data they have collected from different positions in a complex

circuit. The PBI activity has directed students to use the curricular flow analogy for interpreting

varied phenomena to generate potential explanations for the heated wires. Chris inserted his

general knowledge of how spaceships heat upon reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere, likening it to

electron’s speed and the heat released from the wire (101). Chris defined not only the variables of

temperature and current but also encouraged the group to make causal explanations for differential

heating of the wire. Two other group members demonstrated their acquired sagacity and refined

process skills by demanding clarity of the proposed explanation (103) and by using Chris’s

contribution to propose a new hypothesis (107).

The phenomenon of spaceship heating was different from the insertion of personal theory

such as the analogy of children passing through a gate in that it incorporated comments from his

group and promoted an overarching theory for the altered electrons’ speed and resistance of

electron movement in the wire. Chris’s gate analogy shared many attributes with prior PBI tasks

and was consistent for connecting direct evidence to scientific explanations—although transcripts

and other artifacts did not reveal its origins in the curricula. The gate analogy was an attempt to

explain the observed heat as the result of speeding electrons giving off energy, slowing them down

to an appreciable lowered reading on the thermometer. It was so compelling that it served as a

guiding precept in two subsequent investigations. Chris and Mike noticed that wires heated up in

certain parts of circuits and not others. Although the text directed students to compare complex

networks and later Kirchhoff’s rule, this group departed from the PBI text to investigate their

own hypothesis, left the lab to find thermometers, and designed experiments to measure the

SOCIAL INTERACTION AND USE OF ANALOGY 455

temperature of the wire at each junction. Students tried to prove their hypothesis using indirect

evidence—reading temperature and connecting it to the abrupt decrease in speed of electrons—to

make sense of what they had observed.

The insertion of a personal theory resulted in the promotion of certain desirable process skills

including the group’s ability to formulate hypotheses, plan and design experiments, and interpret

data (AAAS, 1989). There were, however, consequences resulting from the unbridled use of

personal analogies, including overlooking contradictory evidence, drawing incorrect conclusions,

and creating increased stress and uncertainty among group members. Mike and Chris designed

their circuit temperature around the assumption that the gate analogy was wholly accurate and

substantiated by differential heating of wires. To the group’s dismay, their results were con-

founding. In their initial tests, data confirmed their hypothesis for differential heating of the single

wire circuit. After a second run of the experiment, different results were obtained; all three

thermometers attached to the wire maintained equal readings. Two subsequent rounds of data

collection of experimental results were discrepant; all three thermometers attached to the wire

maintained equal readings. These unexpectedly contradictory data raised doubts and additional

questions for the group, engaging members in debate in which they reconsidered their prior

consensus regarding their personal theories. Uncertain about how to proceed, the group invented

the idea that larger wires have more resistance and smaller wires help charges move faster through

the wire. Instead of questioning the accuracy of the gate analogy, they discarded their non-

conforming data and generated an explanation adopted as a rule that ‘‘larger wires must offer more

resistance than smaller wires.’’

We were troubled by the group’s ability to retain the gate analogy as valid despite the available

evidence to refute it or limit its explanatory power. It appeared that the unabated usage of personal

theories as analogies allowed students to create reality rather than observe or measure it. We

investigated the origin and authority of this personal theory by examining student journals and

discussion transcripts. Mike believed that the larger area of the wire allowed it to hold and equally

distribute more heat, whereas Curt believed ‘‘the larger wire could hold more of the electricity’’

being sent through it by the battery. Both of these personal beliefs functioned to maintain the

original explanations for unequal heating of the wire promoted by the gate analogy. The problem

of discrepant data from the uniform temperature of the wire became a question of how the gauge of

the wire affects its temperature. However, scientists do not believe that electrons move at different

rates in different parts of simple circuit wires, that electrons come slamming to a stop at the first

resistor, or that air cools circuit wires differentially toward the negative end of the battery, as

students suggested. Though inaccurate, none of these explanations was refuted publicly among

group members. Rather, they were used to retain the personal theory as an appropriate analogy

though they contradicted McDermott’s intended conceptual outcomes for students.

Part of the social context that added to the bias of their experimentation was different

interpretations of the group task. We argue that the instructional context and students’ beliefs

about learning influence the acceptance of personal theories as analogies. In part personal theories

offer resolution to conflict, a kind of balm for uncomfortable debate and disagreement. In part,

personal theories also bound the problem and often divide it up into recognizable and manageable

parts. The following excerpt once again demonstrates the strong influence of social norms on the

texture of arguments involving analogies as students subverted the most well-intended inquiry

curricula.

Chris: I proved that both of them were the same brightness . . .Frank: I think current is used up . . . Some of it is anyway.

Chris: Well, at one point I thought the same thing but I proved that the current was the

same throughout that wire; then it can’t be used up.

456 YERRICK ET AL.

Frank: But you’re losing some to heat energy in that.

Chris: That’s what I was thinking at first too, but we came to the consensus . . .Frank: If it wasn’t used up then the battery would never die.

Chris: The battery is not used up just the only thing is its ability to produce chemically . . .Mike: Yeah, it gives it the chemical charge because that gets used up.

Chris: Well, it won’t produce any more electrons so the pump has stopped.

Frank: But ya see? Do we have to come to the same opinion?

Chris: No. Frank: Because this is where we get behind I mean . . .whatever.

Jeff: So what are you saying Frank? . . .What is your point again?

Frank: As far as electricity or moving on in the group?

Chris: No, but you’ve got a good point because in asking that I’m starting to: think . . .No,

I don’t have to agree; it’s good not to agree. But if we don’t agree somewhere one

of us is gonna go into the next step with the wrong analogy . . .Then we’ve got old

baggage; you’ve got to unlearn all those things and it’s harder to unlearn it.

Although the discussion began as an examination of a personal theory about the consumption

of charge in a battery, the debate was quickly stifled as Frank announced his discomfort of having

to reach consensus. Students adopted personal theories as analogies to end the arduous task of

reaching consensus within a collaborative group because they believed they were getting behind in

their work relative to the rest of the class. Clearly there existed a range of interpretations within the

group for what constitutes scientific knowledge, how it is acquired by students, and the role of

inquiry tasks in learning such knowledge. Students’ references to unlearning content, obtaining

only correct answers, and negotiating when and how consensus was reached demonstrate the

challenge of establishing norms of discourse within a small group—norms that shape the way

analogies are used and are essential to a positive and successful learning experience while

imparting profoundly different dispositions for learning science.

In our attempts to reconstruct students’ interpretations of tasks and their use of analogies in

collaborative contexts, we encountered reflections that did not always represent positive inquiry

experiences. Through interviews we explored students’ value of personal learning experience,

their conflicts they were experiencing between their personal beliefs about teaching and learning

their current tasks, and their plans for teaching their own students with such a model for

collaborative inquiry. These results were synthesized with journal entries, student commentary,

and group transcripts to reveal a wide range of interpretations within this one small group. The

range of perspectives and beliefs that students harbored while engaging in the PBI tasks

reveals the difficulty of establishing acceptable norms within a small group with strong histories

of what it means to do and know science in university classrooms. When group members do

not agree on the value of inquiry learning for themselves or their future students, it is unlikely

they will engage similarly or all attain similar expertise in conceptual understanding, use of

process skills, or desired social skills and dispositions associated with current views of scientific

literacy.

Conclusions

Our analysis of collaborative problem solving using PBI materials revealed that analogies

played a vital role in the individual and collective construction of scientific knowledge.

Specifically, students were observed to use electric circuit analogies for introducing and debating

prior knowledge and experience, increasing authentic engagement in problem solving, promoting

higher-order process skills, and negotiating a social climate necessary for substantive scientific

discourse. We concluded from the analysis of the evolving dialogue, interviews, artifacts

SOCIAL INTERACTION AND USE OF ANALOGY 457

collected, and student journals that analogies played a highly personalized role in developing rich

descriptions about electrical phenomena and related scientific conceptions.

Analogies also played a central role in the joint construction of that knowledge. As in the case

of PBI’s river flow analogy and Chris’s gate analogy, they gave voice and substance to private

knowledge and experience, acting like a handle onto which each member could grasp the public

ideas and evidence and pass them on to other members. Analogies gave students opportunities to

test hypotheses related to current flow and practice other higher-order process skills central to

reform rhetoric as documented by other researchers. Students’ proficiency increased in (a)

identifying and defining pertinent variables, (b) interpreting and analyzing data, (c) planning and

designing experiments, and (d) formulating hypotheses. As demonstrated in the group’s

investigation of heat released from the circuit’s resistors, students not only engaged in hypothesis

testing and data analysis, the analogies and subsequent personal theories extended their process

skills to actually formulating new hypotheses and designing data collection to test their

hypotheses. The frequent use of analogies was most likely influenced by PBI’s inherent student

accountability to complete investigations, decide what counted as evidence, debate multiple

points of view, and construct models to explain scientific phenomena related to simple electric

circuits.

Analogies served as a both tools for sense making as well as a backdrop for interpreting

students’ use of larger conceptual frameworks. Students used analogies for interpreting observed

evidence at the same time analogies and assisted them in talking about phenomena in a way which

members found inviting. However, group members took certain liberties in their appropriation of

analogies inserted by the curricula. Group members overgeneralized the validity of analogies in

certain problem contexts. Students also mapped inappropriate properties onto the given analogies.

For example, students extrapolated from the highway model the notion that light energy acts like

fumes from cars and that the corresponding energy was produced in similar ways. An unfortunate

feature of this particular group’s social context was that many of these misapplications of

analogies went unchecked because the group avoided most direct confrontations.

Not only did group members demonstrate a strong tendency to overgeneralize analogies and

map irrelevant features from the analogy to the target concept, they also engaged in the generation

of their own analogies that emerged first as personal theories, many of which were poor conceptual

matches for the target concept. David Wong (1993) suggested the value and importance of

students’ constructing their own understandings for scientific phenomena. He identified self-

generated analogies as playing a significant role in the development of new understandings not

only in classrooms, but also in scientific communities. Self-generated analogies serve to make new

situations familiar while also encouraging the development of multiple explanations as opposed to

the strict pursuit of a single correct answer. However, sometimes self-generated analogies were

treated with equal or greater authority than the intended analogy, which often resulted in harbored

misconceptions about the scientific phenomena they investigated. Although this type of

interaction is arguably characteristic of the scientific endeavor, during the course of the study the

repeated and frequent formation of misconceptions resulted in a notable degree of frustration and

anxiety for the students. Our study suggests that when students are working collaboratively with

guided inquiry materials, frequent questions and guidance from the instructor may be effective in

averting many of these extended conceptual detours.

Finally, we observed an interplay between social and intellectual uses of analogies in

discourse settings, an interaction that sometimes resulted in subverting the intentions of the PBI

curricula. Student motives that rarely came to the surface during collaborative problem solving

would bring untimely closure to debates and sometimes the merging of dichotomous

interpretations for the sake of comfort or efficiency. Throughout the processes of experimental

458 YERRICK ET AL.

design, data collection, interpretation, and hypothesis testing, the collaborative process was

influenced by many factors. Students found themselves at unforeseen impasses, most likely

because of the novelty of this context, and sometimes chose to ignore discrepant data or recast their

solutions in problematic ways. Although spaceships and backyard gates have personal appeal and

allow students to develop an initial understanding of the phenomena observed, they do not have the

tested generalizability to related events that scientific analogies have the power to explain. Unlike

canonical scientific explanations, which are usually concise, eloquent, and consistent in their use,

explanations and the use of analogies and personal theories fostered by collaborative settings were

used interchangeably in a variety of settings despite their inappropriateness

Implications

It has become increasingly popular to suggest that students should be provided with more

classroom opportunities to engage in constructing their own understandings of and telling their

own stories about scientific phenomena. Although this increased focus on talking science

undoubtedly offers tremendous potential for sustained practice of critically reasoned discourse,

descriptive accounts of preservice science teachers engaged in such educational settings have been

slow to emerge. The inquiry-based PBI curriculum materials offered an excellent venue for

investigating this phenomenon. This study contributes toward the generation of further discussion

about the ways that preservice science educators make sense of scientific phenomena in settings

that bring into question commonly held perspectives on teaching and learning.

Making a personal connection to scientific concepts appeared to crucially support the learning

that occurred in this group. Mike, Chris, and Frank seemed to send a message that the learning of

abstract scientific concepts such as electric current needs to be understood within the context of

students’ own highly personalized ways of making sense. The process of joining new knowledge

to existing knowledge is intrinsically motivating, and analogies play an important role in forming

this type of conceptual bridge (Glynn, 1994). In our collaborative group setting, analogies were

important for several reasons: They emerged from the learners’ own prior knowledge, they helped

to frame problems based on the learners’ perception of the situation, and they allowed the learners

to confront and reshape their own representations with little direction from the teacher. These are

all important components that can, in our view, contribute to the development of a scientifically

literate citizenry.

Although we support the inquiry-based instructional philosophy of the PBI materials and the

activities and interactions that transpired in the classroom, many of students’ personal analogies

and explanations were unsuccessful at leading them to scientifically accepted ideas about the

concepts they investigated. In addition, given the highly personalized nature of meaning making

that was developed in the cooperative group, we find a dilemma concerning how to engage our

students in scientific discourse while also supporting their own highly personal and socioculturally

mediated ways of knowing. Complex problems can emerge when students are brought into contact

with the discourse practices of science in ways that contradict their own personal ways of knowing

(Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Delpit, 1988; LeCompte & McLaughlin, 1994).

We question what it means to privilege the technical rationality of science in favor of other varying

normative discourses that govern action and belief. How can learners be supported in their own

ways of knowing while simultaneously developing new ways of reasoning, speaking, valuing, and

acting? We think that the account of learning portrayed here has demonstrated one way that

prospective teachers can engage in scientific inquiry. Surely others need to be explored, described,

valued and understood.

SOCIAL INTERACTION AND USE OF ANALOGY 459

We suspect that one resolution is found in the role of the teacher, not as subject-matter

authority or information disseminator, but rather as an insider to the discipline with unique insight

regarding how knowledge is created. Our study is a reminder that teachers serve an important role

in classrooms by guiding and scaffolding ways in which knowledge, particularly analogies, gets

shaped, refuted, and promoted. Exemplary curricula alone are no substitute for the teacher’s role

as the primary driver for rules of discourse in collaborative settings. This kind of classroom

interaction stands in sharp relief to the kinds of talking science that are found in more

conventionally managed classrooms. Traditionally, school scientific discourse is a teacher-

directed monologue that masquerades as a student–teacher dialogue, in which students have little

opportunity to discuss and pursue questions in ways that are meaningful to them (Lemke, 1990). In

significant ways, Frank, Chris, and Mike are anomalies not only because they asked many of their

own questions, but more important, because they developed ways of answering their questions that

were useful and meaningful to them. If we are to produce teachers able to facilitate a more

representative discourse in elementary classrooms, we need to alter the experiences of our

prospective elementary teachers long before they announce their candidacy in their third year of

higher education.

Although we have emphasized the importance and value of the learning that occurred in this

group, it clearly did not develop without complications and drawbacks. Indeed, there are many

concerns and questions generated in the study. Collaborative learning situations offer tremendous

potential for the development of critically reasoned discourse, yet the nature of group work as

social interaction raises questions about competition for the domination of discussions and how

ideas are promoted, supported, and accepted. A great deal of schooling seems to support the

socialization of individuals to be participants in a highly competitive society. We have concerns

about how to shift this focus toward interactions that support multiple interpretations of problems.

Given the intense sociocultural focus on competition and the discrimination that often

accompanies it, how can collaborative learning groups be structured so that all members have

equal access to shape and benefit from discussions? There is no readily available solution; the issue

stands as an indicator of the challenges of successfully incorporating collaborative groups into

instructional designs. Perhaps teachers would greatly benefit from continuing, connected

experiences in collaborative settings that attempt to address these issues, with opportunities that

support reflection and discussion of tolerance, cooperation, and understanding. Teachers

themselves need to develop skills in collaboration before they can be expected to construct and

sustain effective learning environments that rely on these skills.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science

literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans:

Project 2061. Washington, DC: Author.

Ball, D., McDiarmid, G.W., & Anderson, C.W. (1989). Why staying one chapter ahead

doesn’t really work: Subject specific pedagogy (Issue Paper 88-6). East Lansing, MI: National

Center for Research on Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 305

330).

Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R., & Tarule, J.M. (1986). Women’s ways of

knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. New York: Basic Books.

Brickhouse, N.W. & Bodner, G.M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom

narratives of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 471–485.

460 YERRICK ET AL.

Camp, C., Clement, J., Brown, D., Gonzalez, K., Kudukey, J., Minstrell, J., Schultz, K.,

Steinberg, M., Veneman, V., & Zeitsman, A. (1994). Preconceptions in mechanics: Lessons

dealing with students’ conceptual difficulties. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

Clement, J. (1988). Observed methods for generating analogies in scientific problem solving.

Cognitive Science, 12, 563–586.

Clement, J. (1989). Learning via model construction and criticism: Protocol evidence on

sources of creativity in science. In J. Glover, R. Ronning, & C. Reynolds (Eds.), Informal

reasoning and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

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.

Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s

children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298.

Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science

Education, 75, 649–672.

Duschl, R.A. & Wright, E. (1989). A case study of high school teachers’ decision making

models for planning and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 467–501.

Eichinger, D.C. (1993, April). Analyzing students’ scientific arguments and argumentation

processes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in

Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.

Eichinger, D.C., Anderson, C.W., Palincsar, A.S., & David, Y.M. (1991, April). An

illustration of the roles of content knowledge, scientific argument, and social norms in colla-

borative problem solving. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, San Francisco.

Gick, M.L. & Holyoak, K.J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive

Psychology, 15, 1–38.

Gilbert, S.W. (1989). An evaluation of the use of analogy, simile, and metaphor in science

texts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 315–327.

Gil-Perez, D. & Carrascosa-Alis, J. (1994). Bringing pupils’ learning closer to a scientific

construction of knowledge: A permanent feature in innovations in science teaching. Science

Education, 78, 301–315.

Glynn, S.M., Doster, E.C., & Law, M. (1997). Making text meaningful: The role of analogies.

In C. Hynd (Ed.), Learning from text across conceptual domains. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Glynn, S.M. (1994). Teaching science with analogies a strategy for teachers and textbook

authors. College Park, MD: National Reading Research Center.

Hammer, D. (1995). Student inquiry in a physics class discussion. Cognition and Instruction,

13, 401–430.

Harre, R. (1961). Theories and things. London: Newman.

Hesse, M.B. (1966). Models and analogies in science. South Bend, IN: University of Notre

Dame Press.

Hodson, D. (1993). Philosophic stance of secondary school science teachers, curriculum

experiences, and children’s understanding of science: Some preliminary findings. Interchange, 24,

41–52.

Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific

thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.

Lantz, O. & Kass, H. (1987). Chemistry teachers’ functional paradigms. Science Education,

71, 117–134.

Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

SOCIAL INTERACTION AND USE OF ANALOGY 461

Lave, J. (1990). Views of the classroom: Implications for math and science learning research.

In M. Gardner, J. Greeno, F. Reif, A. Schoenfeld, A. Disessa, & E. Stage (Eds.), Toward a scientific

practice of science education (pp. 251–263). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

LeCompte, M.D. & McLaughlin, D. (1994). Witchcraft and blessings, science and

rationality: Discourses of power and silence in collaborative work with Navajo schools. In

A. Gitlin (Ed.), Power and method: Political activism and educational research. New York:

Routledge.

Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science: A

review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.

Lederman, N.G. (1995, January). Teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Factors that

mediate translation into classroom practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charleston, WV.

Lederman, N.G. & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of the tentativeness in

science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225–239.

Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. New York: Ablex.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McDermott, L.C., Shaffer, P.S., & Rosenquist, M.L. (1996). Physics by inquiry: An

introduction to physics and physical science (vol. 2). New York: Wiley.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.

Nersessian, N. (1984). Faraday to Einstein: Construction of meaning in scientific theories.

Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinas Nijoff.

Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children’s

science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Padilla, M.J. (1991). Science activities, process skills, and thinking. In S.M. Glynn, R.H.

Yeany, & B.K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 205–217). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park; CA: Sage.

Richmond, G. & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social Processes in small-

group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33,

839–854.

Roth, W.M. & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in

authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 127–152.

Roth, W.M. (1993). Metaphors and conversational analysis as tools in reflection on teaching

practice: Two perspectives on teacher-student interactions in open-inquiry science. Science

Education, 77, 351–373.

Roth, W.-M. (1994). Experimenting in a constructivist high school physics laboratory.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 197–223.

Roth, W.-M. (1995). Inventors, copycats, and everyone else: The emergence of shared

(arti)facts and concepts as defining aspects of classroom communities. Science Education, 79,

475–502.

Schon, D.A. (1979). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem setting in social policy.

In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. London: Cambridge University Press.

Steinberg, M. (1992). Electricity visualized: The CASTLE project. Roseville, CA: Pasco

Scientific.

Thagard, P. (1992). Analogy, explanation, and education. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 29, 537–544.

462 YERRICK ET AL.

Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vellom, P.R., Anderson, C.W., & Palincsar, A.S. (1993, April). Constructing facts and

mediational means in a middle school science classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of

the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Wong, D.E. (1993). Understanding the generative capacity of analogies as a tool for

explanation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1259–1272.

Wong, E.D. (1993). Self-generated analogies as a tool for constructing and evaluating

explanations of scientific phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 367–380.

SOCIAL INTERACTION AND USE OF ANALOGY 463