Rolando M. Tan
Using three-dimensional models in
teaching has become part of the instructional practices of science teachers.
Using models in teaching has shown marked improvements in students’
understanding especially of complex subject matters in science (Mclaurin,
Halverson and Boyce, 2014). Models, which serve as a representation of the
abstract concepts, help students construct ideas (Krontiris-Litowitz, 2003;
Orgill and Thomas, 2006). Glynn (1991) states that using models that facilitate
analogical reasoning is an effective way to foster understanding by relating
their existing knowledge with text knowledge. This is an important
consideration because effective analogies do not only motivate students but
also help them clarify their thinking and avoid misconceptions (Orgill and
Thomas, 2006). Moreover, analogies also “enhance student learning through a
constructivist pathway” (Harrison and Treagust, 1993, p. 1292). If the research
lesson would use such physical manipulatives or any other instructional models
as part of the instructional process, lesson study practitioners and the
so-called knowledgeable other must bear in mind the theoretical foundations of
using teaching materials that foster analogical reasoning.
So what makes a model an
effective teaching material to foster analogical reasoning? Gentner (1998)
enumerates the processes in analogical reasoning: (1)retrieval – an individual
tries to recover a previous analogous example from long term memory (2) mapping
– examining the commonalities from two working memories and making inferences
from one working memory to another (3) evaluation - where the inferences and their
analogies are assessed and (4) abstraction – examining the common structure
between two analogies. Gentner, focuses more on mapping as he proposes the
Structure mapping theory for analogy. In structure-mapping theory, analogy is
“a mapping of knowledge from one domain
(base) to another (target) which conveys that a system of relations known to
hold in the base also holds in the target.”(Falkenhainer, Forbus, Gentner,
1989, p. 2).
Gentner (1983) stressed that
mapping commonalities between the target domain (the object to be compared) and
the base domain (the object which the target is compared to) would involve two
aspects: object attributes and relational predicates. For example when the atom
is compared to a solar system, the atom is the target domain while the solar
system is the base domain.
Object attributes are the
physical features that can be visibly seen on the base and on the target while
relational predicates pertain to the interaction of the objects in a
domain. Structure-mapping theory states that when several overlaps are found
in the object attributes and in relational predicates between the target and
the base, literal similarity is attained and if overlaps are strongly seen on
relational predicates, analogy therefore has been achieved (Gentner, 1983). One
example of an analogy is the lung chest model which was constructed using
simple household materials such as plastic bottle, plastic sheet, small plastic
bags and flexed straws. Looking closely, overlaps between the object attributes
of the model and the human respiratory system are very weak but in terms of
relational predicates a strong overlap can be observed. When the plastic sheet
goes down the small plastic bags inside the plastic bottle inflate. This indicates that air rushes inside these plastic
bags. In the human respiratory system the diaphragm situated below the lungs
also demonstrates a downward movement when it contracts causing the lungs to
inflate. If this model would have object
attributes almost similar to the anatomical structure of the human respiratory
system, literal similarity would have been attained.
The use of analogical models in
the teaching learning process has become a pertinent issue when teachers
collaboratively develop research lessons involving three dimensional models as
a teaching tool. A lesson study group composed of Grade 5 teachers intended to
use a three dimensional model to teach a science concept by analogy. The lesson
study group intended to use a hard-boiled egg as their model to represent the
interior of the Sun. In light of Gentner’s structure-mapping theory - the hard-boiled
egg which serves as an analogical model of the interior of the Sun has been
found to be problematic. Object attributes between the target and the base
domain do not have several overlaps. If the yolk would correspond to the
central core, what will be the counterpart of the Sun’s radiative zone and the
convective zone? The egg shell itself may not have a counterpart with the Sun
as the Sun’s surface does not have a covering that can correspond to the egg
shell. The softness of the yolk and egg white does not have any similarity with
the Sun’s interior as the Sun is made up of hot gases. Another consideration is
the shape of the egg as the Sun is nearly spherical in shape. With regards to relational predicates, there
is totally no relational overlap observable between the Sun and the hard-boiled
egg. The hard-boiled egg’s interior cannot be made to give heat and light as
how the core and radiative zones produce
heat and light. When few or no relational overlaps are observed between the
target and the base, what can be attained is an anomaly instead (Gentner,
1983).
A snapshot of the research lesson
to be implemented is shown below:
 |
| Prepared Questions on the Research Lesson |
From the part titled Analysis and Discussion, the teacher tried to narrow down on the fact that the cross–section of a hard-boiled egg has similarities with the Sun which is more prescriptive rather than constructivist in approach. What the implementing teacher failed to see is that the hard-boiled egg cannot be used as an analogical model to make them infer the interior parts of the Sun.
After the first lesson
implementation data from the post lesson discussion revealed interesting
results from two NISMED staff. NISMED staff 1 gave a firsthand account on some
critical areas seen during the lesson implementation while NISMED staff 2
focused more on the shared ideas and comments of the implementing teacher, his
co-teachers as well as the general impressions about the implementation.
From NISMED staff 1:
A preliminary activity aimed at unlocking
the terms “inner” and “outer” was done.
The Teacher started with eliciting prior
knowledge by asking them to draw the inner parts of the sun but he actually
just said draw the sun instead of saying draw the inner parts of the Sun.
He conducted another activity by asking the
students to draw the cross section of a hardboiled egg and then made them
compare the egg and the Sun. The egg model elicited responses that are not
related to the parts of the Sun. One student even mentioned the presence of Salmonella in eggs.
When he asked if there is any difference
between the sun and the egg most of the students were silent as they do not
seem to know how to answer the question. The hard-boiled egg failed to
represent fully the interior parts of the Sun as the Sun’s radiative and
convective zone have no counterparts that can be found in the hard-boiled egg.
Students were asked to put together the
puzzle pieces to show the parts of the Sun. Afterwards, a reading activity
about the parts of the Sun was given to the students. They were asked to label
the parts of the Sun. The teacher, however, did not give time for the students
to label properly the parts of the Sun as the teacher already named one of the
parts.
During the group activity, only a few
students were actually engaged in the task assigned to them.
From NISMED staff 2:
·
After Mr. ________shared
his observations about the activity and his implementation:
o
He found that the activity was time
consuming despite giving a time limit for the task;
o
He liked the activity because it gave
the students opportunity to relate their previous lessons (from the earlier
grades) to the current lesson, and allowed them to observe something concrete
(egg model) to anchor the development of their ideas on the current lesson; and
o
He expressed that the objectives he set
for the lesson were met to a certain extent since they were not able to finish
the lesson.
·
The impressions and observations of the
rest of the team (co-teachers and NISMED staff 1) were similar to his
observations with regard to the length of time spent in doing all the
activities. Several suggestions were cited by different members of the group to
address this (see the decisions in the next section). The discussion on time
management has implications on the number of tasks for the students and the
choice of which tasks to retain in the revised lesson plan.
·
Other aspects of the lesson and lesson
plan that were brought to light were:
o
Use of the egg as a model of the Sun – Since
the responses of the students showed that they could not easily connect the egg
model to the parts of the Sun (only one group made an effort/attempt to make
the connection) and was limited to inner and outer parts only;
o
Extent of participation of the members
in the group -Only two to three members
were really engaged in the activity due to the big size of the group (10
members ); and
o
Assessment/Quiz – The group was advised
by the NISMED staff to review the items based on the revisions that will be made
on the lesson plan.
Instead of
inferring the parts of the Sun from the egg model, students started to describe
the egg as one pupil even mentioned the presence of Salmonella that can also be found in eggs. The teacher had not realized his role as a
facilitator of learning when he immediately named one of the parts of the Sun’s
interior. By the teacher’s behavior and the students’ responses, the egg model was
not really instrumental in making the students infer the parts of the Sun from
the cross section of the egg since the reading activity was the only source
that could make the students understand more about the parts of the Sun’s
interior.
NISMED staff
gave the following recommendations:
·
Sir ____ will
finish the lesson on the following day with the same section (including the
quiz), but will no longer be observed by the NISMED staff.
·
Retain the preliminary activity using
the pictures of the inner and outer parts of the house for the unlocking of the
terms, but only for the low-ability sections. For the high-ability sections,
this can be omitted or asked directly to the pupils (What do you think is the
meaning of inner/outer?).
·
For the main focus question, stress the
interior parts but rephrase it “What do you think is inside the Sun?/What do
you think are the inner parts of the Sun?”. The teacher is encouraged to ask
this in Filipino especially in the lower-ability sections.
·
To save time, the egg model and the
puzzle will be removed. The activities that will be retained are the drawing of
the Sun to answer the question, “What do you think is inside the Sun/What do
you think are the inner parts of the Sun?” and to elicit prior knowledge. This
task will be done individually and drawn in their notebook. Second, the article
will be retained, but instead of a group activity, it will be done in pairs
(think-pair-share). Moreover, the next task involving the article is for the students
to draw and label the parts of the Sun based on what they understood or learned
from reading the article.
·
For the presentation of
output/drawings, the teacher will tell the students to post their drawings on
the board. The teacher will also give them time to view the other pairs’ work
and then call volunteers to group similar drawings together. He will then ask
for volunteers who will describe their drawings further using their own words.
·
After the selected pairs have
presented, this is the time that the teacher shows the image of the Sun
(showing the interior parts) with proper labels (labels should be bigger). This
time, the teacher will tell the class (pairs) to compare their drawings with
the illustration of the Sun that the teacher posted. The students can evaluate for
themselves (no need to score) on how close their drawings are to the
illustration.
·
Review the assessment items if the
tasks and skills required are aligned with the tasks and skills of the revised
lesson plan. Include a diagram of the Sun and its parts in the assessment task
since the revised lesson will have more visuals.
·
The second implementation will be done
by Ms. ______.
For the lesson
study practitioner and knowledgeable others who serve as consultants to the
lesson study group, it is important to bear in mind the conceptual framework for
using models as tools for analogical reasoning. Every time a manipulative model
or any three-dimensional model is being used to teach a science concept, the
knowledgeable others must be able to analyze the object attributes and
relational predicates that overlap between the target and base domain. This is
important because “uncritical use of analogies may generate misconceptions and
this is especially so when unshared attributes are treated as valid.” (Harrison
and Treagust, 1993 p. 1292).
REFERENCES
Falkenhainer B., Forbus K. D.
& Gentner D. (1989). The Structure-mapping engine:
Algorithm
and Examples. Artificial Intelligence,
41, 1-63. Retrieved from
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/PDF/falkenhainer89structuremapping.pdf
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure mapping: A theoretical
framework for analogy. Cognitive
Science, 7(2), 155-170. doi:
10.1016/S0364-0213(83)80009-3.
Glynn S.H. (1991). Explaining
Science Concepts: A Teaching-with-analogies model. In
S.M. Glynn, R.H. Yeany & B.K. Britton
(Eds.) The psychology of learning science.
Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc.: New
Jersey.
Harrison, A.G. & Treagust
D.F. ( 1993). Teaching with Analogies: A case study in grade
10 optics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 30, 1291-1307. Retrieved
from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Treagust2/publication/
227763859_Teaching_with_analogies_A_case_study_in_grade10_optics/links/00b49521bf923c2973000000.pdf
Krontiris-Litowitz, J. (2003), “Using manipulatives
to improve learning in the
Undergraduate neurophysiology curriculum”, Advances in PhysiologyEducation, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 109-119. doi: 101152/advan.00042.2002.
McLaurin, D.C.,
Halverson, K.L. and Boyce, C.J. (2014), “Using manipulative
models to
develop tree thinking”, Biology International, Vol. 54, pp.
108-121, available at:
http://biologyinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/
11Halverson-Vol-54.pdf (accessed
September 12, 2014).
Orgill, M. & Thomas, M. (30
December 2005). Analogies and the 5E model. National
Science Teachers Association. Available at http://www.nsta.org/publications/
news/story.aspx?id=53146
